Appendix — United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Local 334, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 80-710 j \LEAAR.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, et al.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

LOCAL 334, UNITED ASSOCIATION ETC., et al.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

DONALD J. CAPUANO JAMES R. ZAZZALI

O'DONOGHUE & O’ DONOGHUE ZAZZALI, ZAZZALI & KROLL, P.A.

1912 Sunderland Place, NW Gateway I

Washington, DC 20036 Newark, NJ 07102

(202) 785-2237 (201) 623-1822

Counsel of Record Counsel of Record

for Petitioners for Respondents

ena TEE SY SE EDS aa ee ro

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 31, 1980

CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 26, 1981

+ a 60

“eae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Docket Entries, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chan-

cery Division, Morris County .............22.22222-2.22----..-0--+

Docket Entries, United States District Court for the

Distwict OF NOW FORUGG | ...cccccccccscssccccccspseccccccsecencosescasecs

Docket Entries, United States Court of Appeals for

I ee ND oii cccesinhniduistoctinanh dkeasondeguomabisaneappiate

Complaint-Filed August 22, 1977 _.....0-2000022.......2--2222-2----

Exhibit A to Complaint

Excerpts From United Association Constitution...

Exhibit B to Complaint

Report and Recommendations of Hearing Officer

Philip S. Coyne concerning the Consolidation

of Local Unions in Northern New Jersey ........

Exhibit C to Complaint

Order of Consolidation of Locals 14, 49, 84, 124,

274, 326, 384, 5628, and 766 ......................-.cccc000000

Certification of William F. Wibbelt, Jr.-Filed Augus

a, ERRORS OTE Linen Pere Aeon NOR m rT RETO Ts EO ‘os

Petition of Defendant for Removal-Filed August 25,

BOPED | Aiccscs sks isbadiacnsiinitbcemmniodidviadinasenciaasiaimmiptinsinidiatie

Amended Complaint-Filed August 26, 1977 ......00000000....

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining

TOI - <2 cts.-sctiticehincricasaitipmpeipsacaben aasipeoomimnabanlicennptnaicdaditemaitiee

Affidavit of Martin J. Ward Dated September 9, 1977,

Pe FED noiaackceicn cesta cncectcnancnnccdicreanecseces

Answer-Filed October 4, 1977 ...0....000000.000cococccccc cece eee

Order (Denying Remand)-Filed October 20, 1977 ......

Excerpts from the November 8; 1977, Affidavit of

Thomas Brennan .................... sdhsicupisashiasdieseid Ulamablanabiibieteadads

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Affidavit of Martin J. Ward-Filed November 10, 1977

CREED III encitnccnssnoccnsindnersnconsthibenimacnnecsesonionenanves

Excerpts from the June 26, 1978, Affidavit of John A.

ar eetesaneninnene

Exhibit A to Craner Affidavit

Supplemental Order of Consolidation of Locals

14, 49, 84, 124, 274, 326, 334, 523, and 765 _......

Exhibit B to Craner Affidavit

Second Supplemental Order of Consolidation of

Local 14, 49, 84, 124, 274, 326, 334, 523, and

IEG Ee rE SL RS Cav art Oe Se OO

Exhibit C to Craner Affidavit

Letter Addressed to “Ali Mechanical Contractors

Performing work in the Territorial Jurisdiction

of Former U.A. Local 334” _..000.... ee.

Notice of Motion (for Summary Judgment) -Dated

a slaciinbeldiieetuntansinnasntosione

Notice of Motion (for Summary Judgment) -Dated

i i iaatbedledisimibeneieentowen

Affidavit of William Wibbelt Dated December 30, 1978..

Affidavit of William Wibbelt Dated March i9, 1979....

Order of the Supreme Court of the United States-filed

I a cclabeniciniendinibeineincens

NOTE: The following documents may be found in the

Petition for Certiorari at the designated pages:

Opinion below of the United States Court of Ap-

Page

i05

130

134

138

142

144

146

148

156

165

peals for the Third Circuit of August 4, 1980 .... Pet. la

Opinion of the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey of August 17, 1979 ....Pet. 20a

Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit of August 7, 1980 .......... Pet. 29a

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION, MORRIS COUNTY

C-11-239

C-4637-76E

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE PROCEEDINGS

8-22-77 Complaint; Certification

8-26-77 Amended Complaint

8-26-77 Certification—William F. Wibbelt, Jr.

6-26-78 Order of ismissal w/o Prej.

10- 1-80 Order Remanding Case to Superior Court

10-23-80 Order Confirming Dismissal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. 77-1769

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

8-26-77

8-29-77

9- 9-77

Petition for removal from Superior Court of Morris

County with copies of Complaint and order to show

cause and temporary restraining order re prelimi-

nary injunction, filed 8-25-77.

Notice of petition for removal, filed 8-25-77.

$500.00 deposited in Registry in lieu of Appeal

Bond.

Clerk’s Certificate of Cash Deposit, filed.

Notice of Allocation and Assignment filed. (New-

ark-Biunno)

Temporary restraining order and order to show

cause re preliminary injunction ret. 9-7-77, filed

8-26-77. (Whipple) Notice mailed.

Affidavit of William F. Wibbelt, Jr., filed 8-26-77.

Affidavit of John A. Craner, filed 8-26-77.

$500.00 deposited in Registry in lieu of prelimi-

nary injunction bond.

Clerk’s Certificate of Cash Deposit, filed.

Temporary restraining order and order to show

cause re preliminary injunction ret. 9-14-77, filed

9-7-77. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

Hearing on plaintiff’s application re preliminary

injunction. Ordered hearing continued to Septem-

ber 14, 1977. (Biunno) (9-7-77)

Affidavit of George H. Bliss, filed 9-8-77.

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

9- 9-77

9-14-77

9-19-77

9-21-77

10- 6-77

10-11-77

10-12-77

10-14-77

Affidavit of John McNulty, filed 9-8-77.

Affidavit of Frances J. Coyne, filed 9-8-77.

Affidavit of Martin J. Ward, filed 9-13-77.

Notice of motion and motion by plaintiffs to re-

mand back to the Superior Court of Morris County

ret. 9-16-77, filed 9-16-77. (Brief attached).

Affidavit of William F. Wibbelt, Jr., filed 9-16-77.

Continued hearing on plaintiffs’ application re

preliminary injunction. Ordered application de-

nied. (Biunno) (9-16-77).

Consent order adjourning temporary restraining

order and order to show cause re preliminary in-

junction to September 16, 1977 and restraint

against defendant are continued until a decision is

rendered following the hearing on Sept. 16, 1977,

etc., filed 9-16-77. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

Order denying plaintiff’s application for prelimi-

nary injunction and continuing the stay of the or-

der of consolidation made by the General President

of defendant until such time as a panel of the Court

of Appeals has itself acted on application for stay

pending decision on the appeal which plaintiff in-

tends to take, filed 9-16-77. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

Transcript of hearing taken on 9-16-77, filed.

Answer, filed 10-4-77.

Affidavit of Harry Leddy, filed.

Affidavit of William Albanese, filed.

Substitution of attorneys on behalf of defendants,

filed.

Hearing on plaintiffs motion to remand action back

to Superior Court of Morris County. Ordered mo-

tion denied. (Biunno) (10-11-77).

Ordered leave granted to plaintiff to allow other

locals to intervene. (Biunno) (10-11-77).

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

10-14-77

10-17-77

10-19-77

10-21-77

10-25-77

10-31-77

11-1- 77

Hearing on plaintiffs motion for a temporary re-

straining order. Ordered motion denied. (Biunno)

(10-11-77).

Proposed temporary restraining order and order

to show cause with court’s denial thereon, filed

10-11-77. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

Notice of Appeal of plaintiffs, filed 10-14-77.

Copies of notice of appeal sent to U.S.C.A. and

McCarter and English, Esqs.

Transcript of hearing held 10-11-77, filed 10-18-77.

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion to remand action

back to Superior Court denying plaintiffs’ motion

for temporary restraining order and order to show

cause and granting plaintiffs leave to file petitions

for intervention by Oct. 28, 1977, filed 10-20-77.

(Biunno) Notice mailed.

Notice of defendant to take deposition of William

Albanese, Bertram Harrop, Louis Marzitelli, Pat-

rick Perno, D’Arcy Richardson, Harold Leddy, Ed-

ward L. Baker, Robert A. Garrison, Sr., Jerry

Ginder, Robert F. Johnson, H. A. Meyers, Jr., L.

Parks, A. Picone, F. Quayle, G. D. Smith, Wilbur

G. Swayze, R. Whitmore, William F. Wibbett, Jr.,

John A. Boniface, Robert Glennon, Richard E.

Purtell and Joseph Rooney, filed.

Notice of motion by intervenor, Local 49 for an

order for leave to intervene as a party plaintiff

and filed complaint in intervention, filed 10-28-77.

(Brief previously submitted).

Notice of motion by Locals 523, 124 & 84 for leave

to intervene as a party plaintiff and file complaint

in intervention and for a preliminary injunction

ret. 11-28-77, filed i9-28-77. (Brief previously

submitted).

Preof of mailing of copy of motion to intervene

by Locals 528, 124 & 84, filed.

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

11-4- 77

11-11-77

11-18-77

11-22-77

11-29-77

2-27-77

Affidavit of mailing of copy of Local 49’s motion

in intervention, filed.

Affidavit of Thomas Brennan, filed 11-10-77.

Certified copy of order of U.S.C.A. denying motion

of plaintiff for stay pending appeal on behalf of

Locals 528 and 124 for injunction pending appeal,

filed. Notice mailed.

Notice of motion by defendant for an order declar-

ing that Locals 274 & 14, as the surviving Locals

in a consolidation of Local Unions among Locals

14, 84, 124, 149, 274, 362, 334, 523 & 765 are es-

sential parties and requiring Locals to be named

as parties plaintiff or defendant, filed 10-27-77. (No

brief) (ret. 11-28-77).

Motion by Locals 14 & 274 for an order for leave

to intervene as party defendants and proof of serv-

ice, filed 10-27-77. (No Brief) (ret. 11-28-77).

Proclamation made on motion by Locals 14 and

274 for an order for leave to intervene as party

defendants. Ordered motion granted. (Biunno)

(11-28-77).

Proclamation made on motion by defendant for an

order declaring that Locals 274 and 14 as the sur-

viving Locals in a consolidation of Local Unions

among Locals 14, 84, 124, 149, 274, 326, 334, 523

and 765 are essential parties and requiring Locals

to be named as parties plaintiff or defendant. Or-

dered motion granted. (Biunno) (11-28-77).

Proclamation made on motion by intervenor, Locals

523, 124 and 84 for leave to intervene as a party

plaintiff and file complaint in intervention and for

a preliminary injunction. Ordered motion granted.

Order to be submitted. (Biunno) (11-28-77).

Consent order granting Locals 528, 124 and 84

leave to intervene and file complaint in interven-

tion by January 19, 1978, filed 12-22-77. (Meanor)

Notice mailed.

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

1-16-78

1-17-78

1-24-78

1-30-78

2-2- 78

2- 2-78

2-16-78

2-23-78

Record on Appeal sent to U.S.C.A.

Mailed).

Counterclaim of defendants, Local Union No. 274

and Local Union No. 14 against plaintiffs, filed

1-16-78.

Complaint in intervention, filed 1-19-78.

Complaint in intervention, filed 1-27-78.

Certificate of mailing of copy of complaint in in-

tervention for Local 49, filed.

Notice of motion by defendants, United Associa-

tion, Local 14 and Local 274 for leave to amend

counterclaim of Local 14 & Local 274; and for leave

to file and serve a third party complaint and proof

of service, filed 2-1-78. (No Brief) (ret. 3-13-78).

Certification of David Friedland, filed 2-1-78.

Notice of motion by plaintiffs for an order to con-

solidate Civ. 77-1 with Civ. 77-2266 ret. 3-13-78 and

statement in lieu of brief, filed 2-14-78.

Affidavit of John A. Craner in support of motion

to consolidate, filed 2-14-78.

Proof of mailing of copies of notice of motion to

consolidate and affidavit, filed 2-14-78.

Certified copy of order of U.S.C.A. granting plain-

tiffs motion to dismiss appeal, filed 2-14-78.

Answer of defendant, United Association of Jour-

neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-

fitting Industry of the United States, Canada, AFL-

CIO to complaint in intervention of plaintiffs in

intervention, Locals 523, 124 & 84, filed 2-22-78.

Answer of defendant, United Association of Jour-

neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-

fitting Industry of the United States, Canada, AFL-

CIO to complaint in intervention of plaintiffs in

intervention, Local 49, filed 2-22-78.

(Notice

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

3-14-78

5-16-78

5-22-78

5-23-78

Hearing on motion by defendants United Associa-

tion Local 14 and Local 274 for leave to amend

counterclaim of Local 14 and Local 274 and for

leave to file and serve a third party complaint.

Order motion granted. Order to be submitted.

(Biunno) (3-13-78).

At Call for hearing on motion by plaintiffs for an

order to consolidate 77-1769 and Civ. 77-2266, coun-

sel reported motion withdrawn as moot. (Biunno)

(3-13-78).

Notice of motion by plaintiff and plaintiffs in in-

tervention for an order compelling defendant,

United Association of Journeymen and Appren-

tices, etc. to produce documents which it repre-

sented would be produced following the deposition

of Martin J. Ward as part of the notice to produce

in conjunction with the deposition ret. 6-12-78 and

statement in lieu of brief, filed’.

Affidavit of John A. Craner, filed.

Affidavit of John A. Craner pursuant to General

Rule 12G, filed.

Proof of mailing of copies of notice of motion to

produce documents etc., filed.

Proof of mailing of copies of affidavit pursuant to

General Rule 12G, filed.

Pre-Trial order, filed 5-19-78 (Permitted). Notice

mailed.

Memorandum order withdrawing motions by inter-

venor-defendant Local 14 and 274 for leave to

amend counterclaim and to file a third-party com-

plaint against William Wibbett, Jr., William Doo-

nan, George Whitenack and Robert Glennon, pre-

viously granted, filed 5-22-78. (Biunno) Notice

mailed.

tin

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

6-13-78

6-15-78

6-28-78

6-29-78

7-18-78

7-26-78

Deposition of Martin J. Ward taken on 3-2-78, filed

6-9-78.

At call for hearing on motion by plaintiff and

plaintiffs in intervention for an order compelling

defendant, United Association of Journeymen, etc.

to produce documents which it represented would

be produced following the deposition of Martin

J. Ward as part of the notice to produce in con-

junction with the deposition, court reported motion

withdrawn. (Biunno) (6-12-78).

Hearing on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary in-

junction. Ordered motion denied. Order to be sub-

mitted. (Biunno) (6-26-78).

Proposed Order to Show Cause of Plaintiffs for

a preliminary injunction filed 6-26-78.

Affidavit of John A. Craner, Esq., in support of

plaintiffs’ application for an Order to Show Cause

filed 6-26-78.

Order denying Plaintiffs’ application for a Pre-

liminary Injunction and for a stay pending appeal

or application to the Court of Appeals for a stay

pending appeal filed 6-27-78. (Biunno) (Notice

mailed).

Transcript of hearing held June 26, 1978, filed 6-

27-78.

Notice of Appeal of Plaintiff, Local 334, from Or-

der denying a Preliminary Injunction, filed 6-27-78

at 11:15 a.m.

Copies of Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal sent to

U.S.C.A.; Parsonnet, Parsonnet & Duggan, Esqs.;

McCarter & English, Esqs.; and Friedland & Fried-

land, Esqs.

Certified copy of order of U.S.C.A. denying plain-

tiff’s motion for stay pending appeal, filed 7-12-78.

Record on Appeal sent to U.S.C.A. (Notice mailed).

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

11 -8-78

11-13-78

12-11-78

1- 5-79

1-26-79

2- 5-79

2-16-79

Notice of motion by defendant, United Association

of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing

and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and

Canada for summary judgment ret. 11-27-78 and

proof of service, filed 11-6-78. (Brief submitted).

Notice of cross-motion by defendants, Local 274

& Local 14 for summary judgment ret. 12-11-78,

filed 11-9-78. (Brief previously submitted).

Affidavit of mailing of notice of motion by de-

fendants, Local 274 & 14 for summary judgment

filed 11-9-78.

Consent order adjourning defendants motion for

summary judgment to January 8, 1978, filed 12-8-

78. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

Notice of motion by plaintiff for summary judg-

ment ret. 2-13-79, filed 1-38-79. (Brief submitted).

Affidavit of William Wibbelt, filed 1-3-79.

Proof of mailing of copy of notice of motion by

plaintiff for summary judgment, etc., filed 1-3-79.

Consent order adjourning motions for summary

judgment to Feb. 13, 1979, filed 1-25-79. (Biunno)

Notice mailed.

Certified copy of order of U.S.C.A. that the record

of appeal be filed out of time as of the date of this

order, filed 2-2-79.

Affidavit of Joseph A. Walsh, filed.

Hearing on motion by plaintiff for summary judg-

ment. Decision reserved. (Biunno) (2-13-79).

Hearing on motion by defendant, United Assoc. of

Journeymen, for summary judgment. Decision re-

served. (Biunno) (2-13-79).

Hearing on cross-motion by defendants, Local 274

and 14 for summary judgment. Decision Reserved.

(Biunno) (2-18-79).

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

3-20-79

6-20-79

- 8-22-79

8-27-79

9- 5-79

9-18-79

9-27-79

10-16-79

10-25-79

Affidavit of William Wibbelt, filed 3-19-79.

Certified copy of order of U.S.C.A. dismissing the

appeal, filed 6-18-79.

Letter Opinion, filed 8-20-79. (Biunno) (granting

motion of defendants United Association of Jour-

neymen, etc., Local 14 & 274 for summary judg-

ment).

Order dismissing complaint for lack of jurisdic-

tion; and granting summary judgment for defend-

ants, filed 8-20-79. (Biunno). Notice mailed.

Order directing the sum of $500.00 from the reg-

istry of the court to be refunded to Friedland &

Friedland in lieu of Appeal Bond, filed 8-31-79.

JK (Biunno).

Notice of appeal by plaintiff, Local 334, United

Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United

States and Canada, filed 9-17-79 at 3:30 P.M.

Copies of notice of appeal sent to U.S.C.A., Par-

sonnet, Parsonnet & Duggan, Esqs., McCarter &

English, Esqs. and Friedland & Friedland, Esqs.

Substitution of attorneys on behalf of plaintiff,

Local 334, etc. filed.

Consent Order directing Clerk of the court to re-

fund to Craner & Nelson, Esq. the sum of $500.00

in lieu of preliminary injunction bond and to Mc-

Carter & English, Esqs. the sum of $500.00 in lieu

of removal bond, filed 10-38-79. (Biunno) Notice

mailed.

RECORD ON APPEAL SENT TO U.S.C.A. (NO-

TICE MAILED).

Transcript of hearing taken on 2-13-79, filed 10-

24-79.

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

1- 9-80

5- 7-80

8-15-80

8-25-80

Order directing Clerk of the court to refund

$500.00, out of registry to Craner & Nelson,

Esqs., filed. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

First Supplemental record on appeal sent to

U.S.C.A. (Notice mailed).

Opinion of the Court from U.S.C.A. filed 8-12-80.

(Vacating judgment of the U.S. Dist. Court and

remanding the case to the State Court.

Order remanding action to Superier Court of Mor-

ris County, filed 8-22-80. (Biunno) Notice mailed.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No. 79-2407

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

1979

Oct. 9

Oct. 18

Oct. 22

Oct. 31

Nov. 29

Nov. 30

Dec. 3

Certified copy of Notice of Appeal, received

September 20, 1979, filed.

Record, filed. [TRANSCRIPTS IN EXHIBIT

ROOM]

Exhibits, filed. [EXHIBITS IN EXHIBIT

ROOM]

Appearance of Timothy R. Hott, Esq.; Fried-

land & Friedland, for appellees, United Asso-

ciation, Local 14 and United Association, Lo-

cal 274, filed.

Appearance of Richard C. Cooper, Esq.; Mc-

Carter & English, for appellees, United As-

sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of

the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the

United States and Canada, et al., filed.

Appearance of Albert S. Parsonnet, Esq.;

Parsonnet, Duggan & Pykon, for appellee,

Plumbers Local 49, filed.

Appearance of James R. Zazzali, Esq.; Zaz-

zali, Zazzali & Whipple, P.A., for appellant,

filed.

Consent motion by appellant for leave to file

brief and appendix 80 days out of time from

November 27, 1979 (to December 27, 1979),

filed. (4cc) Service attached.

Submitted on above consent motion. Clerk.

Order (Clerk) granting the above consent mo-

tion, with no further extensions, filed.

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

Dec. 27

1980

Jan. 2

Jan. 21

Jan. 22

Jan. 28

Jan. 30

Feb. 19

Mar. 6

Brief for appellant, rec’d January 2, 1980,

filed. (25cc).

Appendix, rec’d January 2, 1980, filed. (10cc).

Certificate of service of appellant’s brief and

appendix by mail on 12/27/79, filed.

Consent motion by respondents, United Asso-

ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the

United States and Canada, et al., for leave to

extend time to file brief to February 28, 1980,

filed. (4cc). Service attached.

Submitted on above consent motion. Clerk.

Order (Clerk) granting the above «unsent mo-

tion, with no further extensions, filed.

Brief for appellees, Local 274 and Local 14,

rec’d January 30, 1980, filed. (25cc).

Affidavit of service of appellees’, Locals 274

and 14, brief by mail on January 28, 1989, filed.

Letter dated February 14, 1980 from James R.

Zazzali, Esq., counsel for appellant, requesting

oral argument, rec’d for the information of the

Court. (4cc).

Consent motion by appellees, United Associa-

tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the

United States and Canada, et al., for leave to

file brief out of time by March 13, 1980, filed.

(4cc). Service attached.

Motion by appellees, United Association of

Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing

and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States

’

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

Mar. 10

Mar. 11

Mar. 21

and Canada, et al., for leave to file an appendix,

in which it states that all counsel who have

entered an appearance in this case have con-

sented to the granting of this motion, with

attachments, copy of February 13, 1979 tran-

script, filed. (4cc). Service attached.

Submitted on above motion and consent mo-

tion. Clerk.

Order (Clerk) granting the consent motion by

appellees, United Association of Journeymen

and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe

Fitting Industry of the United States and

Canada, et al., for leave to file.brief out of

time by March 18, 1980, with filing as of the

date of this order, filed.

Brief for appellees, United Association of

Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing

and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States

and Canada, et al., filed. (25cc). Service ap-

pears on page 46.

Order (Clerk) granting the motion by appel-

lees, United Association of Journeymen and

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting

Industry of the United States and Canada, et

ai., for leave to file an appendix, with filing as

of the date of this order, filed.

Appendix for appellees (incorporated within

appellees’ brief filed 3/10/80), United Associa-

tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the

United States and Canada, et al., rec’d March

10, 1980, filed. (25cc). Service appears on

page 46.

Consent motion by appellant for a 30-day ex-

tension of time from March 24, 1980 (to April

238, 1980) in which to file reply brief, filed.

(4cc). Service attached.

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

Mar. 24

Apr. 7

Apr. 9

Apr. 10°

Apr. 11

May 2

Submitted on above consent motion. Clerk.

Order (Clerk) denying the above consent mo-

tion as presented; granting an extension of

time to file reply brief for dppellant to April

7, 1980; and stating that no further extensions

will be granted, filed.

Reply brief for appellant, rec’d April 9, 1980,

filed. (2cc—23 add’l ces rec’d 4/16/80). Serv-

ice by mail on 4/7/80 attached.

Motion by appellant for leave to file a supple

mental appendix, treated as motion for leave

to file supplemental appendix out of time, in

which it states that all counsel who have en-

tered an appearance in the within action have

consented to the granting of this motion, with

attachments, filed. (4cc). Service attached.

Submitted on above motion. Clerk.

Order (Clerk) granting the above motion,

with filing as of tie date of this order, filed.

Supplemental appendix for appellant (incor-

porated within appellant’s reply brief filed

4/7/80), rec’d April 9, 1980, filed. (2cec—

Service by mail on 4/7/80 attached.

Clerk’s letter to counsel, written at the direc-

tion of the Court, requesting counsel send a

letter, original and three copies, with copy to

their adversary, addressing the issue of subject

matter jurisdiction in light of Stelling vs.

Inti. Bthd. oj Elec. Workers, 597 F.2d 1879;

1199 DC, Natl. Union of Hospital and Health

Care Employees, 175 U.S. App. D.C. 70, 533

F.2d 1205 (1976); Smith vs. United Mine

Workers, 493 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir. 1974); All

letters should be sent promptly since this case

is listed for disposition on May 20, 1980.

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

May 8

May 9

May 138

May 16

May 20

Order (Adams, C.J.) directing 15 minutes oral

argument time for each side, filed.

First Supplemental Record (Nos. 79 & 80),

filed.

Letter dated May 7, 1980, from Timothy R.

Hott, Esquire, counsel for appellees, Local 14

& 274, received in response to the Clerk’s letter

of May 2, 1980. (4cc). Service in letter.

Letter dated May 12, 1980, from Robert Matis-

off, Esq., and Richard C. Cooper, Esq., counsel

for appellees, United Association of Journey-

men and Apprentices, etc., et al., received in

response to the Clerk’s letter of May 2, 1980.

(4cc). Service in letter.

Letter dated May 14, 1980, from Timothy R.

Hott, Esquire, counsel for appellees, Locals 14

& 274, advising that he has reconsidered his

position on subject matter jurisdiction which

he had offered in his letter of May 7, 1980, and

request that the Court note that he now joins

in with the position of counsel for appellees,

United Association of Journeymen & Appren-

tires, etc., et al. (4cc). Service in letter.

Letter dated May 16, 1980, from James R. Zaz-

zali, Esq., counsel for appellant, received in

response to the Clerk’s letter of May 2, 1980.

(4cc). Service in letter.

Argued. Coram: Adams, Van Dusen & Hig-

ginbotham, C.J. (Appellee to file supplemental

letter brief by May 29, 1980 re: factual basis

for argument of subject matter jurisdiction.

Appellant to respond by June 2, 1980.

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

May 29

June 6

Aug. 4

Aug. 18

Aug. 20

Letter dated May 29, 1980, from Robert Matis-

off, Esq., counsel for appellees, United As-

sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices, etc.,

et al., received at the direction of the Court

and in which it states that Timothy Hott,

Esquire, counsel for appellees Local 14 & 274

join in this statement of position. (4cc). Serv-

ice in letter.

Post-Argument Memorandum for Plaintiff-

Appellant, Local 334, received for the infor-

mation of the Court at the direction of the

Court. (4cc).

Letter, dated June 6, 1980 from Francis J.

Vernoia, Esq., counsel for appellant noting

Errata in Post-Argument Memorandum for

Plaintiff-Appellant, Local 334, received at the

direction of the court. (4 cc). Service attached.

Certificate of service of appellant’s Post-

Argument Memorandum by mail on June 6,

1980, filed.

Opinion of the Court (Adams, Van Dusen and

Higginbotham, C.J.), filed.

Judgment vacating the judgment of the Dis-

trict Court filed August 20, 1979, and remand-

ing the cause to the District Court with in-

structions to remand the cause to the state

court from which it was removed, in accord-

ance with the opinion of this Court, filed.

Motion by appellee, United Association for

Stay of the mandate pending application for

certiorari, filed. (4 cc.) Certificate of service

attached.

Order (Adams, C.J.) staying the issuance of

the mandate until November 2, 1980, filed.

-*%

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

Aug. 28

Oct. 24

Nov. 5

1981

Jan. 28

Feb. 4

Opposition by appellant Local 334 to motion

for stay of mandate pending application for

certiorari, filed. (4 cc) Certification of service

attached.

Motion by appellant, Local 334 for Reconsider-

ation of this Court’s order of August 20, 1980

granting a stay of mandate to November 2,

1980, filed. (4 cc) Certificate of service at-

tached.

Order (Adams, C.J.) denying the motion by

appellant Local 334 for reconsideration of this

Court’s order of August 20, 1980 granting a

stay of mandate to November 2, 1980, filed.

Notice of filing on October 31, 1980 of petition

for writ of certiorari, rec’d from Clerk of the

S.C., filed. (S.C. No. 80-710)

Order—Cert. granted 1/26/81, filed. (S.C. No.

80-710).

Second Supplemental Record (Nos. 81/82),

filed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION

MORRIS COUNTY

Docket No.

LOCAL 834, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND

APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING

INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, an

unincorporated association,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF

THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT—Filed August 22, 1977

Plaintiff, Local 334, United Association of Journeymen

and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting In-

dustry of the United States and Canada, having its prin-

cipal office at 301 East Hanover Avenue, Morristown,

Morris County, New Jersey, complaining of defendant,

says that:

1. Plaintiff is a voluntary labor organization and is a

local union affiliated with defendant, having been assigned

a charter as a combination local for the basic area of

Morris County, New Jersey.

2. Defendant is an international labor organization

consisting of many local unions in New Jersey and else-

where throughout the United States and Canada.

8. The relationship as between plaintiff and defendant

is governed by a constitution, a copy of which is annexed

here to as Exhibit “A”’.

4. Pursuant to Section 86 of said constitution after

directing hearings be held by a representative of the Gen-

eral President, and after receiving the reports and recom-

mendations from said hearing officer, the General Presi-

dent of the United Association, on August 10, 1977, is-

sued an Order of Consolidation affecting, among other

local unions, plaintiff. A copy of the Report and Recom-

mendations of the Hearing Officer is annexed hereto as

Exhibit “B” and a copy of the Order of Consolidation

is annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”.

5. Upon receiving the Order of Consolidation on Fri-

day, August 12, 1977, Plaintiff forwarded to the Gen-

eral Executive Board of defendant a letter of appeal,

a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”. Said

appeal has taken pursuant to sections 218(a), 219(a),

219(b), and 222 of the constitution aforesaid.

6. In said appeal, plaintiff requested a stay of the

Order of Consolidation pending appeal since plaintiff had

been notified by International Representative Francis

Coyne that the implemented on Monday, August 15,

charter and seal and cease functioning as Local 334.

7. Thereafter, on or about August 14, 1977, the

membership of Local 334 was assembled and did ratify

the appeal taken by the officers of Local 334.

8. On or about August 18, 1977, International Repre-

sentative Coyne came to the offices of plaintiff and forc-

ibly removed the charter and seal although fully aware

of the pending appeal to the General Executive Board and

the request for a stay, concerning which plaintiff had not

received a reply.

9. On Friday, August 19, 1977, the membership

of Local 334 again met and authorized the bringing of

this suit to enjoin enforcement of the Order of Consolida-

tion pending resolution of the appeal brought by plain-

tiff pursuant to th2 constitution aforesaid.

10. The effect of the present Order of Consolidation

is to divide the membership of Local 334 into the categor-

ies of plumber and pipe fitter and to assign plumber

members to Local 14 and pipe fitter members to Local

274.

11. Plaintiffs believe that such division of its member-

ship is in violation of the constitution aforesaid and in

particular Section 86, and does not constitute a consoli-

dation of local unions. Plaintiffs desire to have the Gen-

eral Executive Board review this contention and also

whether the General President has abused his discretion

in making such an order. a

12. At the present time plaintiffs have the exclusive

contractual jurisdiction for all plumbing and pipe fitting

work in the area of Morris County. As such, plaintiff

refers out its membership without distinction as to whether

they bear a plumber membership card or a pipe fitter

membership card. The present Order of Consolidation,

unless stayed pending exhaustion of all constitutional

remedies, will result in deprivation of work opportunities

in that plaintiffs’ members will thereafter require to

work under separate referral lists as either plumbers or

fitters and through separate local unions.

13. There will be substantial and irreparable injury

to plaintiffs’ property and property rights as members

of Local 334 unless defendant is restrained and enjoined

from disbanding Local 334 and combining its members

with locals 14 and 274 and preventing plaintiff from con-

tinuing to act as hereinbefore.

14. As to each item of relief granted, greater injury

will be inflicted upon plaintiff and its membership by the

denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendant by

the granting thereof. Plaintiff herein is merely seeking

maintenance of the status quo until the issues which it

’*

has raised on appeal to the General Executions Board

have been resolved.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against de-

fendant restraining and enjoining it and all persons

working in concert or combination with it as follows:

A. From removing the charter and seal of plain-

tiff directing defendant to return to plaintiff said

charter and seal until the further order of this

Court;

B. Directing defendant to process the appeal of

plaintiff and to allow plaintiff a full and fair hear-

ing before said General Executive Board.

C. From obstructing and interfering in the af-

fairs of plaintiff and from threatening its officers

and members with expulsion and loss of membership

in exercising their rights under the constitution

aforesaid.

D. Such other and further relief as the Court

deems fair and equitable in the cause.

CRANER & NELSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ BY John A. Craner

JOHN A. CRANER

EXHIBIT A

[EXCERPTS FROM

UNITED ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTION]

CONSTITUTION

NAME OF ORGANIZATION

SEc. 1. This organization shall be known as the

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND

APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE

FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES

AND CANADA, composed of journeymen and apprentices

engaged in the supervision, fabrication, installation and

maintenance of plumbing and pipe fitting installations of

every description and character.

JURISDICTION

Trade and territorial jurisdiction

Sec. 2. The jurisdiction of territory of the United

Association embraces the United States and Canada, and

its trade jurisdiction shall include all branches of the pipe

fitting industry. In it alone is vested the power to estab-

lish Local Unions, and its mandate must be obeyed at all

times and under all circumstances. To the United Asso-

ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing

and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Can-

ada is reserved the right to decide all matters pertaining

to trade and territorial jurisdiction of its affiliated Local

Unions, and no Local Union is conceded territorial juris-

diction other than the current working day in said terri-

tory, while to Local Unions is conceded the right to make

necessary by-laws and agreements for Local Union govern-

ment which do not conflict with the laws of the United

Association.

JURISDICTION OF WORK

Sec. 8. The United Association having full and exclu-

sive jurisdiction over the plumbing and pipe fitting indus-

try, including the supervision, fabrication, installation and

maintenance of plumbing and pipe fitting installations of

every description and character, shall be composed of

journeymen and apprentices or any type of worker em-

ployed on any kind of work allied to or connected in any

manner with the plumbing and pipe fitting industry.

The United Association shall charter three types of

Local Unions: Building and Construction Trades Local

Unions, Metal Trades Local Unions, and Combination Lo-

cal Unions.

CONVENTIONS

Regular Conventions

SEC. 11. Regular Conventions of the United Associa-

tion shall be held once every five years. The date, time

and place for holding the Convention shall be set and

established by the General Executive Board. The Gen-

eral Secretary-Treasurer shall notify all Local Unions

as to the city designated where the Convention will be

held and the date the Convention will open.

CHARTERS

Local Unions

SEc. 81. The United Association shall issue charters

to three classes of Local Unions: Building and Construc-

tion Trades Local Unions, Metal Trades Local Unions,

and Combination Local Unions.

Building and Construction Trades Local Unions

SEc. 82. Membership in a Building and Construction

Trades Local Union shall be composed of journeymen and

apprentices qualified and eligible to work under the juris-

diction of the Building and Construction Trades Depart-

ment of the AFL-CIO.

Combination Local Unions

Sec. 83. Membership of a Combination Local Union

shall consist of qualified journeymen and apprentices eligi-

ble for membership in the jurisdiction of a Building and

Construction Trades Local Union, and journeymen, ap-

prentices and production workers eligible for membership

in a Metal Trades Local Union.

Applications for Charters

Sec. 84. Charters shall not be issued for a Building

and Construction Trades Local Union or for a Metal

Trades Local Union or a Combination Local Union, in any

city or town, unless there are at least eight (8) qualifying

journeymen who make application for a charter. The p-

plication shall state the type and kind of Local Union to

be chartered—whether it shall be a Building and Con-

struction Trades Local Union, a Metal Trades Local

Union, or a Combination Local Union. The names of the

applicants shall be forwarded to the General Secretary-

Treasurer who shall check such names from the records

in the General Office and with the Local Unions in whose

jurisdiction such applicants were formerly employed. The

General Secretary-Treasurer shall furnish the necessary

supplies without reference to the General Executive Board.

The charter fee for each member shall be $3.00, the entire

amount to be sent to the General Secretary-Treasurer.

Consolidation of Locals

Sec. 86. Whenever, in the judgment of the General

President, it is apparent that there is a superfluous num-

ber of Local Unions in any locality, and that a consolida-

tion would be for the best interest of the United Associa-

tion, locally or at large, he shall have the power to order

Local Unions to consolidate and to enforce the consolida-

tion of said Local Unions, or said territory in one or more

Local Unions, provided such course received the sanction

of the General Executive Board.

Exhaustion of Remedies Within the

United Association

Src, 222. No officer, representative or member of the

United Association or its Local Unions, or District Coun-

cils, or State or Provincial Associations shall resort to

court proceedings of any description, in any matter per-

taining to this organization or its Local Unions, or his

membership, or his office, until all remedies provided for

within the United Association’s Constitution have been

fully exhausted.

Changes in Constitution

Sec. 224. No part of this Constitution shall be sus-

pended at any time, nor can it be amended, except at

Conventions or by referendum vote, as provided in fol-

lowing sections.

Referendum Amendments

Sec. 225. Any Local Union may by a majority vote

propose an amendment to this Constitution. Such pro-

posed amendment shall be published in the official Journal,

where arguments may be made for or against it for at

least three issues. If, within sixty days from date of first

publication of proposed amendment, 25 per cent of total

good standing membership of the U.A. endorse the same,

the amendment shall be submitted by the General Secre-

tary-Treasurer for a general vote of the entire member-

ship at the next regular meeting night. Each Local Union

shall vote by secret ballot (yes or no) on the amendment

as submitted and shall immediately make returns of vote

actually present and voting secretly.

SEC. 226. The General Secretary-Treasurer shall com-

pile and publish the returns in the Journal, and it shall

require 55 percent majority of the members voting to

carry an amendment, and no amendment shall be consid-

ered adopted if less than 55 per cent of the total member-

ship vote. Amendments so adopted shall take effect upon

their passage or as specified in the amendment.

EXHIBIT B

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

HEARING OFFICER PHILIP S. COYNE CONCERNING

THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL UNIONS IN

NORTHERN NEW JERSEY—Dated July 25, 1977

I was appointed Hearing Officer by General President

Martin J. Ward to conduct a hearing as to whether an

order of consolidation should be issued consolidating those

United Association local unions located in Northern New

Jersey in the following manner:

Consolidation of Fitters Local 765 (Passaic) into

Fitters Local 274 (Jersey City) and the transferring

of the fitter members of three combination locals,

Local 49 (Patterson), Local 334 (Morristown) and

Local 523 (Dover) into Fitters Local 274.

Consolidation of Plumbers Local 84 (North Hudson),

Plumbers Local 124 (Passaic) and Plumbers Local

826 (Hackensack) into Plumbers Local 14 (Jersey

City) and the transferring of the plumber members

of three combination local unions, Local 49 (Patter-

son), Local 334 (Morristown) and Local 523 (Dover)

into Plumbers Local 14.

The establishment and chartering of a separate

Metal Trades local union for the approximately 1500

metal trades members of Fitters Local 274 who are

employed by the New Jersey Public Service Electric

and Gas Company.

A hearing was conducted by me at the Sheraton

Heights Hotel, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, on May

10, 1977, at 10:00 A.M. The following individuals were

present:

United Association:

Francis J. Coyne, International Representative

Local 14:

Thomas Brennan, Business Manager

Robert J. O’Neill, President

Local 49:

George Baskinger, plumber

Joseph Baskinger, Executive Board

Thomas Della Cave, Business Manager

John Goodwin, Executive Board

James Grant, President

Edward R. Kelly, Conference Board

John Kuligowski, Recording Secretary

Jack McAteer, Conference Board

John Montesano, retiree

Ralph Perricelli, plumber

Barney Shaban, Chairman, Board of Trustees

Arnold Spoust, Vice President

James Tummino, Executive Board

Local 84:

Joseph Coniglio, Vice President

Robert Free, Executive Board

John J. Harvey, Business Representative

Joseph Maturo, President

Joseph Ofmani, Executive Board

Ferris 0. Tyron, Executive Board

Richard Wilson, Financial Secretary

Local 124:

William Albanese, President

Bertram Harrop, plumber

Louis Marzitelli, Financial Secretary

Patrick Perno, Executive Board

D’Arcy Richardson, Business Manager

Edward Zoon, Vice President

Local 274:

Robert Ackermann, Executive Board

Robert H. Callahan, President,

Southern Division

Clifford A. Clancey, Executive Board

Louis Daniele, Vice President, Orange District

F. DeGruttalo, Vice President, Bergen Division

George S. Flynn, President, Orange District

James R. Frees, Business Agent

Thomas M. Hennessy, Vice President,

Central Division

Charles Kidney, Executive Board

J. Stewart Kidney,

Financial Secretary-Treasurer

Carl G. Leckburg, President, Passaic Division

John J. McNulty, Business Manager

Lawrence W. Murphy, Business Agent

Edward J. Nagelmeyer, President

John Prisco, Vice President

Al Puget, Vice President, Passaic Division

Patrick D. Ryan, President, District Council

Martin Schlindwein, Vice President,

Southern Division

James R. Seppi, President, Bergen Division

C. Russell Simpkins, Jr.,

Business Representative

Thomas Stiles, Business Agent

James Taylor, Executive Board

Local 326:

Ed Kiel, Executive Board

Lawrence Lyons, Financial Secretary

Ed Smida, President

Robert G. Terry, Vice President

Clifford T. Williams, Business Agent

Alexander Wyllie, Executive Board

Local 334:

John A. Boniface, steamfitter

Robert Glennon, Executive Board

Richard E. Purtell, plumber

Joseph Rooney, plumber

William F. Wibbelt, Jr., President

Local 523:

Edward L. Baker, Jr., Executive Board

Robert A. Garrison, Sr., Executive Board

Jerry Ginder, Executive Board

Harold Leddy, Business Manager

H. A. Meyers, Jr., steamfitter

L. Parks, steamfitter

A. Picone, plumber

F’. Quayle, concerned person

G. D. Smith, President

Wilbur G. Swayze, Vice President

R. Whitmore, steamfitter

Local 765:

James J. Faulkner, Business Manager

John J. Gordon, Jr., Executive Board

William F. Golden, Jr., Executive Board

Henry Hazen, President

Ken Leach, Executive Board

John Uszynski, Jr., Vice President.

Peter H. Veretoni,

Financial Secretary-Treasurer

The spokesman for each local was given a full oppor-

tunity to present any oral or written rebuttal to the case

presented by International Representative Francis J.

Coyne in favor of the proposed consolidations. Also, at

the end of the formal presentations, all those present

were given the opportunity to present any other state-

ments that they felt might influence my recommendations.

International Representative Coyne was first to testify.

Briefly summarizing his presentation, International Rep-

resentative Coyne stated there was a superfluous number

of local unions in Northern New Jersey. Consolidation,

he argued, would help solve many of the problems which

have beleagured these locals, such as unemployment, lack

of reciprocity among local fringe benefit funds and the

increasing loss of work to non-union contractors. He ex-

plained his proposal to split up some existing combina-

tion local unions by pointing out that, from past experi-

ence in large metropolitan areas (like Northern New

Jersey), the United Association has found that its juris-

diction is best protected by straight line local unions.

Furthermore, straight line locals located in the same area

generally engage in healthy competition between them-

selves.

International Representative Coyne’s presentation was

followed by that of Local Union 14. According to the

report of International Representative Coyne and Spokes-

man Thomas Brennan, Business Manager, Local 14 has

agreed to all of the terms of the consolidation as out-

lined by International Representative Coyne. Business

Manager Brennan reported that he had been party to a

number of meetings between the officers of the involved

locals but, unfortunately, they never have been able to

devise a formula for voluntary consolidation. He com-

pleted his statement by stating that he and the members

of Local 14 concurred in the recommendations of Inter-

national Representative Coyne.

Business Manager Thomas Della Cave was the spokes-

man for Local 49, a combination local of Paterson, New

Jersey. Brother Della Cave made a very articulate pres-

entation of the objections in his organization to the

consolidation plan as outlined by International Repre-

sentative Coyne. His statement shows that the United

Association has made several overtures to Local 49 to

attempt voluntary consolidations with several of its sister

locals since 1972. Each attempt met with failure because

the officers and members of Local 49 did not feel that

the consolidations would be to their benefit. Brother

Della Cave talked about the advantages of combination

locals over, straight line locals and argued that combina-

tion locals, such as Local Union 49, should not be split

up. As a Business Manager of a combination local for

the past 17 years, I found some appeal in his arguments.

However, I must agree with General President Martin

J. Ward’s statement at the May, 1977 Purdue Conference

that combination locals often cannot adequately control

jurisdiction and the manning of our bread and butter

work. Jurisdiction often breaks down when a large in-

dustrial job or power house comes into the territory of

such a local. The very make up of a small combination

local frequently forces the Business Agent to yield to

the wishes of his members and to refer a man to such a

job without regard to whether he is a fitter, repair man,

refrigeration man or a plumber and qualified to perform

the particular job in question.

Brother Della Cave classifies Local 49’s pension and

welfare plans as among the best in the State. After re-

viewing both plans, I have no question that they ex-

tremely liberal in their benefit structures. However, as

a Trustee of funds for many years, I must question the

ability of small organization, such as Local 49, to sustain

the liberal benefits allowed at this time, particularly in

view of the substantial number of retirees within the

local and a work force of only 240 active members.

Brother Della Cave complained that the proposed di-

vision of existing combination locals might result in fore-

ing members of the same family into different locals,

since a father might be a fitter and a son a plumber

within the same local. I believe International Repre-

sentative Coyne adequately answered that argument when

he stated that he would give personal consideration to

any reasonable request for a change of trade classifica-

tion. Finally, Brother Della Cave also talked of the

progressiveness of Local 49; for example, he stressed the

early retirement provisions of its pension plan encour-

aged members of Local 49 to retire early and make room

for new members. However, the record seems to con-

tradict Brother Della Cave’s comments with regard to

the local’s progress. Only 40 apprentices have been ac-

tive in the local’s apprentice training program since

1972, an average of eight apprentices a year. The record

also shows Local 49 has only taken in five journeymen

in the past five years. Local 49 does not have any train-

ing facilities of its own nor does it own any property.

Its funds do not participate in reciprocity agreements

with any of its sister locals. Local 49 has made no effort

to implement a speculative housing agreement.

The spokesman for Plumbers Local 84 of North Hud-

son, New Jersey, John H. Harvey, Business Agent, made

a brief statement. His statement was a plea for reci-

procity of funds, and he ended it by concurring on behalf

of his membership in the recommendations of Interna-

tional Representative Coyne.

D’Arcy Richardson, Business Manager of Plumbers

Local 124 of Passaic and spokesman for his local at the

hearing, made a statement favoring consolidation but not

in the particular form presented by International Rep-

resentative Coyne. He favored creating new combination

locals rather than straight line locals. He also pointed

out that Local 124 has had trouble maintaining full em-

ployment. Finally, as Brother Richardson admitted, he

has been unable to get the cooperation of his sister locals

in implementing a speculative housing agreement.

John J. McNulty was the spokesman for Fitters Local

274 of Jersey City, New Jersey. Brother McNulty made

a statement favoring straight line locals over combina-

tion locals and ended his statement by concurring with

the recommendations of International Representative

Coyne for the consolidations as outlined at the beginning

of this report. He also placed several exhibits in the

record supporting the consolidation.

Clifford Williams, Business Agent for Plumbers Local

326 of Hackensack, New Jersey, acted as spokesman for

his local. He stated that, though his membership felt

that they had been progressive over the years and were

saddened at the prospect of losing their separate identity

as a local union, nevertheless they did support the recom-

mendations of International Representative Coyne.

William Wibbelt, President of combination Local 334

of Morristown, New Jersey, acted as spokesman for his

local. Brother Wibbelt voiced his opposition to the con-

solidation plan of the United Association and offered a

plan of his own. He spoke with considerable pride about

the progress his local has made over the years. Local

334 is one of the few smaller locals that does have its own

training facilities and is party to some reciprocal agree-

ments. They have implemented a speculative housing

agreement. However, even with their own training fa-

cilities, they have only graduated 16 apprentices in five

years. They have had as many as 348 travelers in one

year and the lowest number of travelers in five years has

been 116. Yet the record shows that they have only

taken 22 journeymen into membership in that period of

time. Thus, I would have to question how much progress

the local has actually made.

Harold Leddy, Business Manager of combination Local

528, acted as spokesman for his organization. He stated

that Local 523 was not against consolidation, but ob-

jected to splitting up combination locals. Brother Leddy

referred to a letter addressed to International Repre-

sentative Coyne which related that members of Locals

300, 309 and 523, at separate meetings, had voted to

merge, provided that they received the approval of the

General Office. The letter points out that this would

create a combination local of 450 members. The letter

does not say how many retirees would be part of this

450-man local. The combined territory of this group

would come to about 1300 square miles. Local 523 has

had from 304 to 49 travelers working in its jurisdiction

over a five year period but has only admitted four people

to membership in that period. Brother Leddy also pointed

out that Local 523 was willing to sign reciprocity agree-

ments, provided that the locals requesting the agree-

ments have the same contribution rate as Local 523.

James Faulkner, Business Manager of Fitters Local

765, acted as spokesman for his local. Brother Faulkner,

on behalf of the members of his local, concurred in the

recommendations of International Representative Coyne.

Following a luncheon recess, I reconvened the hearing

and advised those present that I would accept any state-

ments for the record. Several of those members present

offered brief statements. The President of Local 49,

Brother Grant, stated that he did not feel that his local

had had sufficient time to prepare its briefs. I suggested

that, if Local 49 had any further briefs, it could get

them to me as soon as possible. As of the writing of this

report, I have not received any further information from

Local 49.

Spokesmen for all of the locals acknowledged for the

record that they felt they had had a fair hearing. With

these acknowledgements, the hearing was concluded.

Section 86 of the United Association Constitution pro-

vides that, whenever in the judgment of the General

President it is apparent that there is a superfluous num-

ber of local unions in any locality and that a consolida-

tion would be for the best interest of the United As-

sociation, locally and at large, he shall have the power

to order local unions to consolidate and to enforce the

consolidation of said local unions, or said territory in

one or more local unions, provided such course receives

the sanction of the General Executive Board.

I have reviewed the transcript of the testimony and

all documents presented at the hearing. Based on the

record before me, I conclude that the consolidations pro-

posed by International Representative Coyne would be

in the best interests of the United Association, and I

recommend that they be ordered by the General President.

There is no question that there is a superfluous num-

ber of locals in Northern New Jersey. For example, the”

two existing straight line fitter locals and the four

straight line plumbers locals are all located within a

geographic area of only 195 square miles. Consolidations

as proposed by International Representative Coyne will

allow members of these locals to obtain work throughout

a much larger geographic area, thereby increasing their

work opportunities.

Union contractors operating in Northern New Jersey

will be made more competitive by the consolidations, since

they will be enabled to enjoy greater freedom of move-

ment throughout larger geographic areas than before.

The stabilization of wage and fringe benefit rates that

would result from the consolidations will also make the

climate more favorable for union contractors. As union

contractors become more competitive, so the work oppor-

tunities of United Association members increase. More-

over, as a result of the benefits that may be expected

from the consolidations, non-union contractors operating

in the area may themselves be more inclined to use union

help.

From my study of the various benefit plans of the

local unions involved, it appears that many of these

plans may be in financial trouble at the present time

or in the very near future. With consolidation of the

tocals and the consolidation of the local funds that is

likely to follow, the benefit rights of members would be

better protected. Also the consolidations would eliminate

the threat to accrued benefit rights of many of the mem-

bers of these locals, as well as travelers from other geo-

graphic areas, resulting from the refusal of the funds

of these locals to enter into reciprocity agreements with

other funds.

Other advantages would result from the consolidation.

Saving in administrative expenses for these locals could

be expected. The two large consolidated straight line

locals would be able to afford the costs of sending full

time officers out into the field, thus better protecting the

trade jurisdiction of the United Association in Northern

New Jersey.

As stated earlier, I find it difficult not to be in sym-

pathy with the arguments presented at the hearing

against the splitting up of combination locals. In the

past, combination locals were the answer to organizing

rural areas. Unfortunately, the record of the combina-

tion locals in Northern New Jersey has not proven satis-

factory. The record shows a history of little growth

among these locals and little accomplished to protect the

work jurisdiction of our trade. In my view, straight

line locals are better equipped to man the large industrial

jobs, which now previde work for so many United As-

sociation members. Because the largest part of the geo-

graphic area involved is industrial, I believe that the two

straight line building trades locals proposed by Interna-

tional Representative Coyne would be better suited to

protect our trade jurisdiction in these days of increasing

non-union competition.

The local unions involved in these consolidations have

been offered over the past several years many oppor-

tunities by the United Association to work out on a

voluntary basis acceptable consolidation proposals. Un-

fortunately, as International Representative Coyne has

stated, no real effort was apparently made until after

the January 6, 1977 meeting of the New Jersey Pipe

Trades, at which time the Chairman of that organiza-

tion, Brother McNulty, reported that General President

Ward had stated that the local unions in New Jersey

had thirty days to present their own consolidation plans.

The locals that then agreed on consolidation plans did

not have enough members to form a sound organization.

Thus, in my view, the consolidations suggested by Inter-

national Representative Coyne are the only solutions to

the problems plaguing the area.

Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, I recom-

mend to the General President that a consolidation order

be issued as provided in Section 86 of the United As-

sociation Constitution, directing and ordering that Fitters

Local 765 (Passaic) be consolidated with Fitters Local

274 (Jersey City), and that Plumber Local 84 (North

Hudson), Plumbers Local 124 (Passaic) and Plumbers

Local 326 (Hackensack) be consolidated into Plumbers

Local 14 (Jersey City); and, further, that the fittter

members of the three combination locals, Local 49 (Pater-

son), Local 334 (Morristown) and Local 523 (Dover) be

transferred into Fitters Local 274 (Jersey City); and

that the plumber members of Local 49, Local 334 and

Local 523 be transferred into Plumbers Local 14 (Jersey

City). This would result in a plumbers union having a

membership of 1051 and a fitters union having a mem-

bership of 1254, each with a territorial jurisdiction of

over 1500 square miles.

After the building trades organizations had presented

their positions, I asked International Representative

Coyne to present his arguments for the chartering of a

separate metal trades local for the gas fitters members

of Local 274 of Jersey City employed by the Public Serv-

ice Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey. Brother

Coyne stated that he had recommended a separate char-

tered metal trades local for the gas fitters because it

would benefit the metal trades members of Local 274.

For example, under a separate charter, these members

would enjoy the right to elect their own officers, the

right to conduct their own business and the right to

organize and expand their organization. They could

strengthen their organization by affiliation with other

gas fitter organizations in New Jersey and other locals

throughout the country, taking advantage of the resolu-

tion adopted at the last United Association Convention

establishing a separate gas section within the United

Association. According to International Representative

Coyne, the granting of a charter to the metal trades

members of Local 274 would be in both the best interest

of the members of the Metal Trades Division and the

best interests of the United Association.

Patrick Ryan, President of the Local 274 Gas Workers

District Council, acted as spokesman for the 1500 mem-

bers of the Metal Trades Division of Local 274. He re-

ported that the members of the Metal Trades Division

of Local 274 were opposed to the termination of their

membership in Local 274. He.also voiced concern over

what metal trades members considered to be their vested

right in the financial structure of Local 274.

Brother McNulty, Business Manager of Local 274,

then made a statement for the record. He stated that

at no time had the members of the Metal Trades Division

of his local interferred in any way in the operation of

the local and that there had been a harmonious relation-

ship between the building trades members of Local 274

and the metal trades members. H*wever, he did state

that if, in the view of the General President, a separa-

tion of the Building Trades and the Metal Trades Di-

visions was in the best interest of the United Associa-

tion, he would abide by that decision and hoped that

everyone would also accept it and continue to work in

harmony.

At the end of his statement, I asked Brother McNulty

to obtain a breakdown of the finances of Local 274 be-

tween the Building Trades Division and the Metal Trades

Division for the past five years. He assured me he would.

I received the financial statement on May 138, 1977. The

financial statement shows a substantial deficit over a ten

year period within the Metal Trades Division.

I concur in the recommendation of International Rep-

resentative Coyne that the chartering of a separate metal

trades local for the metal trades members of Fitters

Local 274 of Jersey City would be in the best interest

of those members as well as the United Association. I

would also recommend that Local 274 assist the newly

chartered metal trades local and that meetings be held

with the officers and Council members of the metal trades

group to explain the reasoning behind such a move and

to fully inform them of the many benefits they would

derive as a result.

Dated this 25 day of July, 1977.

/s8/ Philip S. Coyne

PHILIP S. COYNE

Hearing Officer

EXHIBIT C

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION OF

LOCALS 14, 49, 84, 124, 274, 326, 334, 523, 765

As General President of the United Association, under

the provisions of Section 86 of the United Association

Constitution, I am herewith adopting the Report and

Recommendation of Hearing Officer Philip S. Coyne, ap-

proving and recommending the consolidation of Local

765 (Passaic, New Jersey) as well as the pipefitter mem-

bers of Local 49 (Paterson. New Jersey), Local 834

(Morristown, New Jersey) and Local 523 (Dover, New

Jersey) into Pipefitters Local 274 (Jersey City, New

Jersey). Hearing Officer Coyne also recommended a

consolidation of Local 84 (North Hudson, New Jersey),

Local 124 (Passaic, New Jersey) and Local 326 (Hack-

ensack, New Jersey) as well.as the plumber members

of Locals 49, 334 and 523 into Plumbers Local 14 (Jer-

sey City, New Jersey). Hearing Officer Coyne also rec-

ommended the establishment and chartering of a sepa-

rate metal trades local union for the approximately 1500

metal trades members of Pipefitters Local 274 who are

employed by the New Jersey Public Service Electric and

Gas Company. A copy of Hearing Officer Coyne’s Re-

port is attached to this Order and made a part hereof.

A hearing was conducted on May 10, 1977, at the

Sheraton Heights Hotel, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey,

by Hearing Officer Coyne pursuant to my direction, as

General President. Each local union was served with

timely notice of the hearing. Representatives for each

local appeared and were afforded an opportunity of pre-

senting evidence regarding the proposed consolidations.

International Representative Francis J. Coyne, who is

unrelated to the Hearing Officer, was also present and

presented evidence.

I hereby adopt the findings, conclusions and recom-

mendations of Hearing Officer Coyne and, as General

President, I conclude and find that there are a super-

fluous number of local unions in the northern part of the

State of New Jersey and that it is in the best interests

of the United Association, both locally and at large, as

provided by Section 86 of the United Association Consti-

tution, that Local 765, as well as the pipefitter members

of Locals 49, 834 and 523 be consolidated into Pipefitters

Local 274, that Locals 84, 124, 326 as well as the plum-

ber members of Locals 49, 334 and 523 be consolidated

into Plumbers Local 14, and that a separate metal trades

local union be established for the approximately 1500

metal trades members of Pipefitters Local 274 who are

employed by the New Jersey Public Service Electric and

Gas Company.

Accordingly, as General President, with the consent

and approval of the General Executive Board, I hereby

order and direct that the trade and territorial jurisdic-

tion of Local 765 and the trade and territorial jurisdic-

tion over pipefitting only of Locals 49, 334 and 523 shall

be consolidated into Local 274, effective the 15th day of

August, 1977, and that all members of Local 765 and the

pipefitter members of Locals 49, 334 and 523 shall be

transferred into Local 274 as of that date.

I hereby order and direct that the trade and territorial

jurisdiction of Local Unions 84, 124, 326 and the trade

and territorial jurisdiction over plumbing only of Local

Unions 49, 334, and 523 shall be consolidated into

Plumbers Local 14, effective the 15th day of August,

1977, and that all the members of Local 84, 124 and 326

as well as the plumber members of Locals 49, 334 and

523 shall be transferred into Local 14 as of that date.

I further order and direct that all the monies and

financial assets of Local 765 shall be turned over to

Local 274 and Local 274 shall assume all bona fide debts

and liabilities incurred by Local 765 up to the effective

date of the consolidation. I order and direct that all the

monies and financial assets of Local Unions 84, 124 and

326 shall be turned over to Local 14 and Local 14 shall

assume all bona fide debts and liabilities incurred by

Local 14 up to the effective date of the consolidation.

With respect to the monies and financial assets of

Local Unions 49, 334 and 523, I order and direct that

the monies and assets of these local unions shall be

divided on an equitable basis and turned over to Locals

274 and 14. Locals 274 and 14 shall meet and agree on

an equitable division that shall be subject to the approval

of the General President. Local Unions 274 and 14 shall

assume all bona fide debts and liabilities incurred by

Local Unions 49, 334 and 523 up to the effective date of

the consolidation. All contractual obligations of Local

Unions 49, 334 and 523, including existing collective bar-

gaining agreement or agreements, shall be assumed and

carried out by Locals 274 and 14.

I order and direct that a charter shall be issued for a

metal trades local union, namely Metal Trades Local 855,

and that the approximately 1500 metal trades members

of Local 274 employed by the New Jersey Public Service

Electric and Gas Company shall be transferred to this

newly established metal trades local union effective the

15th day of August, 1977. The newly chartered metal

trades local union shall assume the existing collective

bargaining agreement with the New Jersey Public Serv-

ice Electric and Gas Company. Local 274 and its officers

are directed to assist the newly chartered Metal Trades

Local 855 and International Representative Coyne is

directed to meet with the representatives of the metal

tradesmen and with representatives of Local 274 to work

out the details involved in the establishment of the newly

chartered Metal Trades Local 855. Any disputes arising

out of the chartering of Metal Trades Local 855 between

Local 855 and its members and Local 274 that are not

resolved shall be submitted to the General President for

a decision.

To insure that the consolidation does not adversely af-

fect the existing fringe benefit rights of members of the

locals to be consolidated, the welfare, educational, vacation

and industry funds, if any, of the locals to be consoli-

dated shall not be. finally consolidated until a plan for

consolidation has been first reviewed and approved by

International Representative Coyne.

With respect to the pension funds of each local union,

the Martin E. Segal Company, the pension consultant to

the United Association, has developed procedures to be

followed in effectuating a consolidation of pension funds.

International Representative Coyne is directed to call

these procedures to the attention of the officers of the

consolidated Locals 274 and 14 and to the Boards of

Trustees of each of the respective pension funds. To

effectuate a consolidation of the pension funds and to

insure that a consolidation of the funds is accomplished

without reducing any benefits accrued to the partici-

pants, International Representative Coyne is directed and

authorized to take any and all actions necessary to effec-

tuate a consolidation of the pension funds of the locals

involved in the consolidation. The plan for consolidation

that is finally developed shall be subject to being re-

viewed and approved by the General President prior to

being placed in effect.

Pending the adoption of a plan for the consolidation

of the respective fringe benefit funds and/or an actual

consolidation of the fringe benefit funds, such as the

welfare funds, the pension funds or the educational

funds, contributions to each respective fringe benefit

fund for employees who are employed in the present ter-

ritorial jurisdiction of one of the local unions to be con-

solidated shall be made to the fund or funds of that

local union. It is anticipated that a plan for consolida-

tion of the welfare and educational funds can be devel-

oped and implemented within a short period of time. A

consolidation of the pension funds is a more complicated

process and will require a longer period of time. Until

a plan of consolidation is developed and/or an actual con-

solidation of the pension plans is effected by the Boards

of Trustees, contributions will continue to be made to

each of the pension funds as outlined above. in issuing

this Order of Consolidation, I am specifically reserving

the right to issue whatever further directives and orders

that may be necessary to effectuate a consolidation of the

fringe benefit funds, particularly the pension funds.

The amount of dues that the members of the locals to

be consolidated presently pay to their local unions shall

be paid to Local 274 and Local 14 as of the effective date

of the consolidation. Thereafter, members shall continue

to pay their current rate of dues to Local 274 and Local

14 until Locals 274 and 14, pursuant to the applicable

provisions of their constitutions and by-laws and Section

136(b) of the United Association Constitution, change

the amount of dues for former members of Local Unions

49, 84, 124, 326, 334, 523 and 765.

Certain members of the local unions involved in these

consolidations have been employed for varying periods of

time on work that is not within the work jurisdiction of

their trade classification. Where such members can estab-

lish that they have the requisite experience and qualifi-

cations for another trade classification, for example,

from plumber to steamfitter. As General President, I am

authorized to develop a procedure for processing requests

for a change of trade classification by members of the

local unions involved in these consolidations.

In view of the complexities of these consolidations and

the fact that several local unions are being consolidated

into one local union, as General President I am author-

ized to appoint temporary officers for Locals 274, 14 and

the newly chartered metal trades local union, who shall

serve until such time as the General President directs

that an election of officers be held. The election of offi-

cers shall be held no later than one year from the date of

this Order of Consolidation.

I hereby direct International Representative Coyne to

take any and all actions and steps he deems necessary to

conclude the consolidations and the chartering of Metal

Trades Local 855 set forth above in this Order of

Consolidation.

Dated this 4th day of August, 1977.

/3/ Martin J. Ward

MARTIN J. WARD

General President

[CERTIFICATION OF WILLIAM F. WIBBELT, JR.—

Filed August 26, 1977]

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION

NORRIS COUNTY

Docket No.

LOCAL 334, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND

APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUS-

TRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, @n unincor-

porated association,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO.

Defendant.

CERTIFICATION

WILLIAM F. WIBBELT, JR. does hereby certify as fol-

lows:

1. I am the Business Manager of Local 334, United

Association, the plaintiff in this action and am fully

authorized by the membership of said local union to

make this affidavit.

2. I have read the allegations contained in the

Amended Complaint. The facts contained therein are

true and are within my own persgnal knowledge. I in-

corporate the allegations of the Amended Complaint

herein as if each such allegation was set forth in detail.

3. When we appeared in Court on Tuesday, August

23, 1977, counsel for the International indicated that,

insofar as the International General Executive Board

was concerned, there was no appeal which could be taken

from the Order of Consolidation issued by the General

President and which was based in part upon a certain

hearing conducted on May 10, 1977 and a Report and

Recommendation of Philip S. Coyne (Exhibit “B’’).

4. I would like to call attention to the transcript of

the hearing held before Mr. Coyne and in particular his

statement to all local unions who attended, as follows:

Mr. Coyne: Consolidation of Locals: Section 86.

Whenever, in the judgment of the General President

it is apparent that there is a superfluous number of

Locals in any locality, and that a consolidation

would be for the best interests of the United Asso-

ciation, locally or at large, he shall have the power

to order Local Unions to consolidate and to enforce

the consolidation of said Local Unions, or said terri-

tory in one or more Local Unions, provided such

course received the sanction of the General Execu-

tive Board.

And may I note there are appeals to the General

President’s decision if he decides to have consolida-

tion. (Pg. 16, Lines 8-21)

5. With respect to our efforts to effectuate a volun-

tary consolidation, when International Representative

Coyne announced his plan for consolidations, he advised

myself and other business agents that if we could come

up with our own plan of consolidation within the speci-

fied time period, that plan would be given consideration.

6. There are several local unions which surround Lo-

cal 334. They are: Local 49, Paterson, New Jersey, a

combination local (covering 269 square miles); Local

765, Passaic, New Jersey, a fitter local (14 square

miles) ; Local 124, Passaic, New Jersey, a plumber local

(14 square miles); Local 523, Dover, New Jersey, a

combination local (923 square miles); and Local 334,

Morris County, a combination local (135 square miles).

Our proposed consolidation would thus create a new

territory of Morris, Passaic and Sussex Counties, an

area which has acted in concert for many years.

7. Accordingly, within the time limitations specified

by Representative Coyne, we petitioned the General Pres-

ident for a consolidation of the aforesaid locals and terri-

tories into Local 334 as a combination local. A copy of

that petition is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”. This

petition was again presented at the hearing of May 10,

1977. To date, neither a response nor consideration of

this proposal has been received.

8. On May 16, 1977, Local 334, along with other

locals telegramed the General President requesting a

meeting and Objecting to the splitting up of combination

locals. A copy of that telegram is annexed hereto as

Exhibit “F”’. ins

9. On June 2, 1977, a follow-up letter to the telegram

of May 16, 1977 was forwarded to the General President,

a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “G’. No

reply to either the telegram or letter has ever been

received.

10. The membership of Local 334, as well as myself,

believes that the larger “straight line” fitter locals in

New Jersey, Locals 274 and 475, because of their large-

ness and political position with respect to the Interna-

tional have influenced this so-called consolidation. We

feel we have not been fairly treated. Our local has ex-

isted for 70 years and grown with Morris County. As

was so aptly stated by Representative Coyne at the May

10, 1977 hearing, the future of the United Association

in North Jersey is in the west. How then can it possibly

be said that our local is “superfluous”? The dictionary

defines “superfluous” as meaning “beyond what is re-

quired or sufficient; extra”. Why is it any more or less

superfluous to have one local union in the entire State of

New Jersey or 10 or 20?

11. Common sense dictates that with an area of ap-

proximately 1,355 square miles the existence of at least

one local union cannot be said to be superfluous, espe-

cially if that area contains a total of between 800 and

1,000 journeymen. My experience is such that at least 5

business agents would be necessary to police and protect

such an extensive territory.

12. Section 86 of our Constitution was never intended

to accomplish that which is sought to be accomplished.

It was designed to combine locals covering the same

territory or duplicating the same services. It seems

rather strange to find my local, which occupies one entire

county virtually by itself as being superfluous, and yet at

the same time leave two local unions (14 and 274 in

Jersey City and 24 and 475 in Newark) remaining.

13. Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly,

is the fact that under the Order of Consolidation, Local

334 is to be split up with those members who bear a

“plumber” card going to one local (14) and those who

bear a “fitter” designation going to another local (274).

Yet these men, adept at all phases of our craft, will now

be deprived of being referred out for either craft since

local 14 and 274 compete with each other. How, then,

ean it be said that our local is being “combined” under

these circumstances when the Constitution itself does not

even recognize such charters or division of work. Rather,

the emphasis is upon a local of both plumbers and fitters

—a designation only of that of a journeymen—building

and construction trades; one qualified in all branches of

the craft. In fact, that is exactly how the apprentice

program in Local 334 operates.

14. As far as working conditions are concerned, most

of the contractors we deal with circulate in the Morris,

Passaic and Sussex County areas. There are, of course,

contractors who travel the entire State, but mainly,

Hudson and Bergen County contractors do not venture

into our areas and our contractors do not venture into

those territories as a general rule.

15. The unemployment problem is not a valid basis

for this type of consolidation. First of all, lumping

everyone together into two locals will not create more

jobs. In fact, our members, who can work at either

branch of the trade, will now be confined to only one

branch and thus loose job opportunities. Nor does this

proposed set-up in any way protect the jurisdiction of the

United Association, and I am at a complete loss to under-

stand this conclusion reached by the Hearing Officer. If

anything, a combination local is best equipped to protect

the jurisdiction of the United Association.

16. With respect to the irreparable injury which will

ensue, I respectfully refer to my original affidavit. The

loss of job opportunities and the sharing of assets would

be impossible to calculate. There simply is no adequate

remedy at law.

17. With respect to the threats made against myself

and my members I annex hereto as Exhibit “H” a tele-

gram from Representative Coyne which is self-explana-

tory. The institution of this action is a decision of the

entire membership of Local 334. They should be entitled

to their day in Court free of restraint and free of threat.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made

by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing

statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject

to punishment.

/s/ William F. Wibbelt, Jr.

WILLIAM F. WIBBELT, JR.

Dated: August 24, 1977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. C-4637-76E

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

Plaintiff

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant

PETITION OF DEFENDANT FOR REMOVAL—

Filed August 25, 1977

Your Petitioner, the United Association of Journey-

men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting

Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO

(hereinafter “United Association”), a labor organiza-

tion representing employees in an industry affecting

commerce, respectfully : tes to this Court that it is

named as a Defendant in a civil suit which was filed in

the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division,

Morris County (Civil No. ) and that service of

the Complaint was effected on Defendant on August —,

1977. The Plaintiff in this case in Local 334 of the

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of

the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United

States and Canada (hereinafter “Local 334’), a labor

organization representing employees in an industry af-

fecting commerce.

Plaintiff’s suit filed in the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, seeks a judg-

ment interpreting the rights of the parties pursuant to

the Constitution of the United Association. Said Consti-

tution is a contract agreement governing the rights,

duties and relationship of the parties to this lawsuit.

Therefore, the cause of action herein is an action for vio-

lation of a contract between labor organizations repre-

senting employees in an industry affecting commerce

arising under Section 301 of the Labor Management Re-

lations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).

The cause of action in this case is within the original

jurisdiction of this Court, and this suit is founded on a

claim of right arising under the Constitution, treaties or

laws of the United States. Attached hereto are copies of

all pleadings that have been filed in this case.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Court to take

jurisdiction of this Petition and issue all necessary or-

ders and process in order to remove the above captioned

case from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery

Division, Morris County, to the United States District

Court for the District of New Jersey.

Respectfully submitted,

FRIEDLAND & FRIEDLAND

591 Summit Avenue

Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

By /s/ David Freidland per JAM

DAVID FRIEDLAND

O’DONOGHUE & O’ DONOGHUE

1912 Sunderland Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

By /s/ Patrick C. O’Donoghue per JAM

PATRICK C. O’DONOGHUE

/s/ Joyce Mader

JOYCE MADER

Attorneys for Defendant

[| Verification and Certificate of Service

omitted in printing]

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION

MORRIS COUNTY

Docket No. C-4337-76E

LOCAL 334, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND

APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUS-

TRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, an unincor-

porated association,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO.

Defendant.

AMENDED COMPLAINT—Filed August 26, 1977

Plaintiff, Local 334, United Association of Journey-

men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting

Industry of the United States and Canada (hereinafter,

Local 334), having its principal office at 301 East Han-

over, Morristown, Morris County, New Jersey, by way

of complaint, says that:

FIRST COUNT

1. Plaintiff is a voluntary labor organization char-

tered by defendant, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF

JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE

PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF

THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO

(hereinafter, International) for the territory consisting

of the greater portion of Morris County, New Jersey, as

a combination local union within the meaning of Section

81 of the Constitution of said International, a true copy

of which was annexed to the Complaint as Exhibit “A”

heretofore filed.

2. Defendant is an International labor organization

consisting of many local unions in New Jersey and else-

where throughout the United States and Canada.

3. The relationship (rights and duties) between Local

334 and the International is governed by the said Consti-

tution.

4. Asa combination local union, Local 334 has a mem-

bership composed of journeymen as defined in Section

153 (a) and MT-2 of the said Constitution.

5. The building and construction trades journeymen

of Local 334 are adept at all phases of the plumbing and

pipefitting craft. Although said journeymen (who par-

ticipate in a unified apprenticeship program) are re-

quired to elect a designation of “plumber” or “pipefitter”

upon completion of their apprenticeship, they are ail con-

sidered “journeymen” by Local 334 and are referred to

either plumbing or pipefitting jobs without distinction as

to designation.

6. Although said Constitution, Section 81, refers only

to a building and construction charter, a metal trades

charter, or a combination of the two as the only char-

ters which may be granted by the International, there

are local unions affiliated with the International which

are commonly known as “straight line” local unions and

are either entirely composed of plumbers, with jurisdic-

tion in that phase of the overall jurisdiction of plumbing

or are either entirely composed of pipefitters with juris-

diction in that phase of the overall jurisdiction of pipe-

fitting as set forth in the Constitution relating to pipe-

fitting. Such charters pre-existed the original formation

of defendant International.

7. Wherever “straight line” locals do exist, there is

an overlap in territorial jurisdiction in that two or more

such “straight line” locals encompass the same geograph-

ical area.

8. Where a combination local is chartered for a par-

ticular territory, it and it alone has the sole jurisdiction

in that territory. Thus, insofar as plaintiff is concerned,

its territory is exclusive.

9. Plaintiff has serviced the Morris County area since

being chartered approximately 70 years ago. At present

it is composed of approximately 185 journeymen and ap-

prentices. Plaintiff has contractual relations with the

Mechanical Contractors Association and numerous inde-

pendent piping and plumbing firms doing business on the

Morris County area. As a result of continued construc-

tion in the jurisdiction of Local 334, its membership has

enjoyed excellent employment opportunities and a lower

unemployment rate as compared with other sister-locals

in New Jersey.

10. Plaintiff operates a hiring hall whereby employ-

ers in need of journeymen and apprentices will contact

plaintiff which in turn will refer such employees to work.

11. Because it is a combination local and because its

membership is adept at all phases of the craft, members

of Local 334 are referred out from a unified referral

list, regardless of whether the job required a plumber or

pipefitter, and regardless of the membership designation

of each such member.

12. It is therefore an advantage to be a member of

plaintiff rather than a member of a “straight line” local

union, which does not enjoy an interchange of work

opportunities because of its limited jurisdiction.

13. For a substantial period of time the Constitution

of the International has contained language authorizing

the General President to order local unions to consolidate,

similar to Section 86 of the present constitution, when

“it is apparent that there is a superfluous number of

Local Unions in any locality”.

14. During this period of time the General President

of the International has never deemed the number of

local unions in any “locality” of New Jersey to be “su-

perfluous” although in many areas “straight line” locals

share the same territory and have on numerous occa-

sions engaged in disputes with one another over the ju-

risdiction of particular work, requiring the Interna-

tional to resolve such disputes.

15. In or about May, 1977, Local 334, along with the

consent of locals 765, 124, and 49, petitioned the General

President for permission to consolidate Locals 334, 7665,

124, 49 and 523 into one combination local with Local

334 to be the surviving local. Said petition was pursuant

to a recommendation by International Representative

Coyne that unless the various locals in New Jersey vol-

untarily consented to consolidations the General Presi-

dent would order consolidations in accordance with an

alternative recommendation of said International Repre-

sentative Coyne pursuant to Section 86. No response to

this petition has ever been received.

16. Thereafter, on May 10, 1977, plaintiff, along with

other local unions, were ordered to show cause why a

plan of consolidation proposed by Representative Coyne

should not be issued under Section 86.

17. Accordingly, on May 10, 1977, a hearing on this

order to show cause was held under the auspicies of a

hearing officer, appointed by the General President at

which hearing plaintiff and the other locsls affected

objected to the plan of consolidation as proposed by Rep-

resentative Coyne and reiterated their agreed upon peti-

tion for consolidation, among other things.

18. At the hearing aforesaid, International Represen-

tative Coyne on behalf of the General President testified

that there were a superfluous number of locals in New

Jersey, many with small territories and most culminat-

ing around the cities of Newark and Jersey City, many

confronted with high unemployment and loss of welfare

and pension benefits because of a lack of reciprocity.

19. None of the aforesaid observations applied to

plaintiff (nor to the locals it sought consolidation with)

and, particularly Representative Coyne failed to set forth

reasons why plaintiff was considered a “superfluous”

local union. In point of fact, Representative Coyne indi-

cated that, in his view, long range growth in the plumb-

ing and pipefitting industry favored plaintiff and other

local unions located in the western portion of New

Jersey.

20. The Report and Recommendations of the Hearing

Officer appointed by the General President (Exhibit “B”

annexed to the Complaint heretofore filed) adopted in

toto the position of Representative Coyne.

21. As a result, the General President issued his Or-

der of Consolidation (Exhibit “C” annexed to the Com-

plaint heretofore filed), inter alia, breaking up plaintiff

local along craft lines and “consolidating” the plumber-

designated-members with Local 14 in Jersey City, a

“straight line’ plumber local, and the pipefitter-members

with Local 274, a “straight line” fitter local, also in

Jersey City. The Order of Consolidation removed all

local unions north of Newark and west of Jersey City

and “consolidated” them into two local unions located in

Jersey City, New Jersey and awarded the territory of

said local unions, but on a divided jurisdictional basis to

said Jersey City local unions.

22. The actions of the General President in breaking

up the membership of plaintiff, Local 334, as aforesaid,

are in excess of the powers granted to the Gener] Presi-

dent under the Constitution aforesaid.

23. The actions of the General Persident, as aforesaid,

do not constitute a consolidation of local unions within

the meaning of Section 86, and, therefore, said Order of

Consolidation; insofar as it applies to plaintiff, is illegal.

24, The effect of the Order of Consolidation is to take

away from the membership of plaintiff rights and priv-

ileges which they have heretofore enjoyed under the Con-

stitution of the International which action is contrary to

the intent and purpose of Section 86 within the frame-

work of the Constitution aforesaid.

25. Plaintiff has attempted to exhaust all available

internal remedies under the International Constitution

and has been advised by said International that there are

no further remedies to exhaust, notwithstanding that

plaintiff has in fact appealed the decision of the General

President to the General Executive Board and sought a

stay from said body pending a hearing on said appeal,

which application has gone unanswered.

ooy26, At the present time plantiffs have the exlcusive

contractual jurisdiction for all plumbing, pipefitting,

metal trades and refrigeration work in Morris County,

New Jersey. As such, plaintiff refers out its membership

without distinction as to whether they bear a plumber

membership card or a pipefitter membership card.

27. The present Order of Consolidation, unless stayed

pending this litigation will result in deprivation of work

opportunities for each member of plaintiff in that such

members will thereafter be required to work under sep-

arate local unions which are divided along craft lines and

’ therefore under separate referral lists as either a plum-

ber or a pipefitter with no opportunity to interchange as

is presently the case.

28. It is impossible to caiculate the financial loss,

therefore, to each member of plaintiif, since job referrals

’%\

under the Order of Consolidation would be shared with

members of the other local unions consolidated, as well

as along craft lines. Moreover, each member of plain-

tiff will have to compete in the territory of Morris Coun-

ty with a large group of journeymen and will lose the

advantage of their present positions on the out of work

list of plaintiff. Therefore, there will be immediate and

irreparable injury to the property rights of the members

of plaintiff unless defendant is restrained and enjoined

from disbanding Local 334 and enforcing the Order of

Consolidation. Plaintiff itself will be required to sur-

render its assets to be divided between two local unions.

Since a great portion of these assets consist of realty, a

sale that realty so as to conform with the division of

assets will result in irreparable injury to plaintiff itself

unless defendant is restrained and enjoined from enforc-

ing the Order of Consolidation.

29. As to each item o* relief granted, greater injury

will be inflicted upon plaintiff and its membership by the

denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendant by

the granting thereof. Plaintiff merely seeks a preserva-

tion of the status quo until the issues raised in this

Amended Complaint can be resolved at a trial on the

merits.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment:

A. Enjoining and restraining defendant, its agents,

servants and employees from enforcing the Order of Con-

solidation pending the resolution of the issues raised in

this suit.

B. Directing defendant, its agents, servants and em-

ployees to return to plaintiff its charter and seal and to

continue, until the further order of this Court, to treat

plaintiff as a duly constituted local union of the Inter-

national and to cease threatening its officers and members

with expulsion or penalty for exercising their right to

protect their local union and its assets.

C. Setting aside the Order of Consolidation as to Local

334 on the ground that said Order of Consolidation as

applied to plaintiff exceeds the powers granted to the

General President under Section 86 of the Constitution

of the International.

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems

fair and equitable in the cause.

SECOND COUNT

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in para-

graphs 1 through 21 inclusive of the First Count, as if

the same were set forth herein in full and made a part

hereof.

2. Actions of the General President in directing the

breaking up of Local 334 pursuant to Section 86, as

more particularly set forth above, constitute an abuse of

discretion on the part of said General President in that

the consolidations referred to in Section 86 were never

designed nor intended to encompass the results directed

herein by said Order of Consolidation.

8. The General President, in issuing his Order of Con-

solidation has failed to consolidate local unions as directed

by Section 86, but instead has created local unions with

charter jurisdictions which violate Sections 3 and 81 of

said Constitution.

4. The General President has abused his discretion

within the meaning of Section 86 by failing to specify

facts which would support his conclusion that Local 334

is a “superfluous” local union insofar as the Morris

County, New Jersey area is concerned or that the elimin-

ation of Local 334 would be in the best interests of the

United Association, locally or at large.

5. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in para-

graphs 24 through 28 of the First Count, as if same were

set forth herein in full and made a part hereof.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment:

A. Enjoining and restraining defendant, its agents,

servants, and employees from enforcing the Order of Con-

solidation pending the resolution of the issues raised in

this suit.

B. Directing defendant, its agents, servants and em-

ployees to return to plaintiff its charter and seal and

to continue, until the further order of this Court, to

treat plaintiff as a duly constituted local union of the

International and to cease threatening its officers and

members with expulsion or penalty for exercising their

right to protect their local union and its assets.

C. Setting aside the Order of Consolidation as to

Local 334 on the grounds that said Order of Consolida-

tion as applied to plaintiff constitutes an abuse of the

discretion vested in the General President pursuant to

Section 86 of the Constitution to consolidate local unions

within the framework of the Constitution of the Inter-

national.

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems

fair and equitable in the cause.

THIRD COUNT

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in para-

graphs 1 through 21 inclusive of the First Count, as if

the same were set forth herein in full and made a part

hereof.

2. In determining that Local 334 was “superfluous” and

that its consolidation with other local unions would be

“for the best interests of the United Association, locally

or at large, the General President was required to specify

in detail the reasons supporting these conclusions as to

Local 334 so as to permit a determination on review as

to whether his actions constituted a reasonable exercise of

‘%

the discretion vested in him wnder Section 86 of the Con-

stitution of the International.

8. The General President failed to set forth his rea-

sons why he concluded the existence of Local 334 was

“superfluous” or that its consolidation with another

local would be “for the best interests of the United As-

sociation, locally or at large” within the meaning and

intent of Section 86.

4, Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in para-

graphs 24 through 28 of the First Count, as if the same

were set forth herein in full and made a part hereof.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment:

A. Enjoining and restraining defendant, its agents,

servants and employees from enforcing the Order of Con-

solidation pending the resolution of the issues raised in

this suit.

B. Directing defendant, its agents, servants and em-

ployees to return to plaintiff its charter and seal and

to continue, until the further order of this Court, to

treat plaintiff as a duly constituted local union of the In-

ternational and to cease threatening its officers and mem-

bers with expulsion or penalty for exercising their right

to protect their local union and its assets.

C. Setting aside the Order of Consolidation as to

local 334 on the ground that defendant, by its General

President, has failed to spell out the reasons behind his

decision as more particularly contained in the Report and

Recommendations of Hearing Officer Coyne and the Order

of Consolidation and directing that such reasons be so

specified and the General President directed to reconsider

his proposal to consolidate Local 334 and a new decision

thereupon directed.

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems

fair and equitable in the cause.

FOURTH COUNT

1. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in para-

graphs 1 through 24, inclusive and 26 through 28 inclu-

sive of the First Count, as if the same were set forth

herein in full and made a part hereof.

2. Plaintiff was advised at the hearing held May 10,

1977 by International Representative Coyne in connection

with the order to show cause issued by the General

President, as aforesaid, in connection with the right of

appeal from any decision of consolidation by the General

President, that each affected local union had a right of

appeal.

8. Accordingly, plaintiff has appealed the decision of

the General President to the General Executive Board

pursuant to Sections 218(a), 219(a) and (b), and 222

of the Constitution aforesaid, a copy of said appeal and

request for a stay pending appeal being annexed to the

Complaint heretofore filed as Exhibit “D”, but has re-

ceived no reply thereto.

4, Plaintiff has a right to have its appeal heard and

considered by the General Executive Board pursuant to

said Constitution aforesaid and that failure to process

said appeal constitutes a violation of said Constitution

and the rights of plaintiff thereunder.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as fol-

lows:

A. Enjoining and restraining defendant, its agents,

servants and employees from enforcing the Order of

Consolidation pending the resolution of the issues raised

in this suit.

B. Directing defendant, its agents, servants and em-

ployees to return to plaintiffs its charter and seal and

to continue, until the further order of this Court, to treat

plaintiff as a duly constituted local union of the Inter-

national and to cease threatening its officers and members

with expulsion or penalty for exercising their right to

protect their local union and its assets.

C. Directing the General Executive Board to review

and consider the appeal filed by Local 334, giving said

Local a reasonable opportunity to present and argue its

case, and, thereafter, to fairly and impartially review

same and render its decision in accordance with the Con-

stitution of the International aforesaid.

D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems

fair and equitable in the cause.

CRANER & NELSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: /s/ John A. Craner

JOHN A, CRANER

For the Firm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No.

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

‘ie Plaintiff,

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF

THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This matter being opened to the Court by Craner and

Nelson, Esqs., attorneys for plaintiff, LOCAL NO. 334,

U. A., ete., and it appearing to the Court that plaintiff

filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Morris County, wherein it sought

certain injunctive relief, and therafter filed an Amended

Complaint also seeking certain injunctive relief, among

other things, along with supporting Affidavits, and it

further appearing that the within action has been re-

moved by defendant to this Court as more particularly

set forth in a certain Petition of defendant for removal

heretofore filed with this Court, and whereas plaintiff

seeks a Temporary Restraining Order preliminary to

hearing upon Motion for a preliminary injunction, on

grounds that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or

damage will result to plaintiff before notice can be served

and a hearing had thereon, in that plaintiff has been

directed to cease operations as a duly chartered local of

defendant, to divide up its membership and property im-

mediately, and in connection therewith, contractors hav-

ing collective bargaining agreements with plaintiff are

being instructed not to do business with plaintiff, not to

seek employees from plaintiff and to turn over all fringe

benefit contributions owed to plaintiff to other locals of

defendant;

It is, therefore, on this 16th day of August, 1977, OR-

DERED that defendant show cause before the Hon.

Vincent Biunno on Wednesday the 7th day of September,

1977 at 10 o’clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter

as counsel may be heard as to why a preliminary injunc-

tion should not issue enjoining and restraining defend-

ant, its officers, agents, employees and attorneys, pend-

ing trial and ultimate disposition of this action from en-

forcing the Order of Consolidation annexed to the Com-

plaint as to plaintiff and from taking any steps toward

interfering with plaintiff’s contractual relations with em-

ployers or from in any way treating plaintiff other than

as a duly constituted local of defendant as was the case

prior to said Order of Consolidation, and for such other,

further and different relief as may be appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant, its offi-

cers, agents, employees and attorneys, and all persons act-

ing by, through or under them be, and they are hereby re-

strained until September 7th, 1977 from in any way en-

forcing the Order of Consolidation, from interfering

with the contractual relations of plaintiff with employers,

and from in any way treating plaintiff as other than a

duly constituted local of defendant as was the case prior

to the Order of Consolidation.

This temporary restraint is on condition that a bond of

eash be filed by plaintiff herein in the sum of $500.00

forthwith within ——— days from the date hereof in ac-

cordance with Rule 65(c).

/s/ Lawrence A. Whipple

LAWRENCE A, WHIPPLE

C.J.

U.S.D.C.

It is further ordered that the restraints contained in

this order shall expire on September 7th, 1977 unless on

before such date the time be extended as provided in Rule

15 and. that defendant have leave to move for a dis-

solution or modification of the restraints hereby imposed

on ——~ day’s notice by attorney for plaintiff.

It is further ordered that true but uncertified copies of

this order and the affidavits filed herewith be served upon

the attorneys for defendant within 2 days from the

date here.

/s/ Lawrence A. Whipple

LAWRENCE A, WHIPPLE

C.J.

U.S.D.C.

[AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN J. WARD DATED

SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No.

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant.

)

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) S8S.:

)

MARTIN J. WARD, of full age being duly sworn

upon his oath according to law deposes and says:

1. I am the duly elected General President of the

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of

the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United

States and Canada (hereinafter referred to as the

“United Association”). I have served in that capacity

since June 1, 1971. I first became an officer of the United

Association on July 1, 1958, when I was appointed to the

office of Assistant General-Secretary-Treasurer. Prior to

becoming an officer of the United Association, I was

Business Manager of Local 597 of Chicago, Illinois. I

first joined the United Association in 1987 as an appren-

tice steamfitter member of Local 597. I completed my

apprenticeship in 1942 and until my election to a full

office in Local 597, I worked at the trade of journeyman

steamfitter.

AFFIDAVIT

2. The United Association is a labor organization

with approximately 335,000 members in approximately

565 local unions. The work jurisdiction of the United

Association is set forth on pages 136-141 of the current

Constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A). It embraces

‘pipe of every form and description and wherever located.

The work jurisdiction of the United Association includes

the work of several recognized separate trades. They are

the trades of plumber, steamfitter-pipefitter hereinafter

referred to as pipefittter,' lead burner, and sprinkler

fitter. Within these trades there are also recognized

special skills. For example, instrument fitting—the cali-

bration and adjustments on piping systems and controls,

pipe welding, the installation and servicing of refrigera-

tion equipment, are all special skills within the pipefitter

trade. There are pipefitter members who exclusively per-

form the work of their special skills. The line of de-

marcation between the trades is determined by the pur-

pose of the piping system. Thus, the work of the plumb-

ing trade includes domestic water and sewer pipe—work

covered by the plumbing code. The pipefitting trade in-

cludes heating, cooling and industrial pipe. The lead

burning trade encompasses all lead burning work in the

plumbing and pipefitting industry and the work for

sprinkler fitter trade is pipe for automatic fire extin-

guisher systems. The United Association has historically

chartered building and construction local unions with a

trade jurisdiction limited to a single trade such as the

plumber trade or the pipefitter trade. The United Asso-

ciation has also historically chartered building and con-

1 At the turn of the century this trade was generally called the

steamfitter trade. The term pipefitter is a development that started

in the late 1930’s to reflect that the steamfitter trade encompasses

something more than heating and cooling. It also includes process

piping in industrial plants. The term steamfitter and/or steamfitter-

pipefitter have identical meanings insofar as they are used in the

United Association.

struction local unions composed of dual trades such as

the plumber trade or the pipefittter trade. There are two

local unions that have charters for the trades of pipe-

fitter and sprinklerfitter, namely Local 120 of Cleveland,

Ohio, and Local 638 of New York City. All of the lead

burner locals are single trade locals, and there are 19

sprinklerfitter single trade local unions. The allegations

in the complaint that the charters of local unions with a

single trade jurisdiction pre-date the original formation

of the Defendant International Union and the allegation

in William Wibbelt’s affidavit that no charters for a

single trade have been issued since the merger in 1912

are just not true. The United Association was issued

a charter by the American Federation of Labor on Oc-

tober 11, 1889. Each of the single trade charters issued

by the United Association was issued subsequent to Oc-

tober 11, 1889. The International Association of Steam,

Hot Water and Power Pipefitters was*issued a condi-

tional charter by the American Federation of Labor in

1901. Jurisdictional disputes arose between the Inter-

national Association and the United Association and, at

its 1912 convention in Rochester, New York, the Ameri-

can Federation of Labor ordered the International As-

sociation to merge with the United Association. The

International Association’s membership. was exclusively

pipefitters, whereas the membership of the United As-

sociation include all pipe trades. For example, in Chi-

cago the United Association had chartered Plumbers

Local 520. The International Association had chartered

Pipefitters Local 2. After the 1912 convention, Interna-

tional Association Local 2 and United Association Local

520 merged and became Local 597, my home local union.

Since the merger in 1912, the United Association has

continued, right up to the present day, to issue building

and construction charters to local unions for a single

trade. Nineteen charters for building and construction

local unions, composed solely of sprinkler fitter journey-

men and apprentices, have all been issued subsequent to

1912. Other examples of single trade plumber or pipe-

fitter building and construction local unions chartered

since 1912 are the following:

DATE OF

LOCAL UNION CHARTER TRADE

606 Isthmus of Panama 2-14-14 Plumber

651 Charleston, W.Va. 8-1-14 Plumber

449 Pittsburgh, Pa. 5-10-13 Pipefitter

842 Oakland, Calif. 5-1-14 Pipefitter

464 Omaha, Nebraska 4-38-15 Pipefitter

512 Nashville, Tenn. 11-18-15 Pipefitter

457 Nassau Co., L.L, N.Y. 6-17-16 Plumber

775 Suffolk Co., L.I., N.Y. 4-26-19 Plumber

818 Syracuse, New York 7-10-20 Pipefitter

765 Passaic, N. J. 4-15-22 Pipefitter

690 Philadelphia, Pa. 8-25-31 Plumber

250 Los Angeles, Calif. 10-1-38 Pipefitter

195 Beaumont, Texas 4-21-41 Pipefitter

625 Charleston, W. Va. 5-22-43 Pipefitter

80 State of Delaware 9-24-44 Pipefitter

211 Houston, Texas 1-1-49 Pipefitter

725 Miami, Florida 6-22-50 Pipefitter

799 Newcastle & Chatham, N.B. 11-23-65 Pipefitter

Not only has the United Association continued to issue

building and construction charters for single trade locals

since 1912, but some of the United Association locals

that were dual trade locals prior to the merger became

a single trade local after the merger by the issuance of

a separate charter for members of one of the trades.

Thus, Local 16 of Omaha, Nebraska, was a dual trade

plumber and pipefitter United Association local prior to

the merger. In 1914, the pipefitter members of Local

16 were issued a charter as Local 464—a single trade

pipefittter local. Local 17 of Memphis, Tennessee, is an-

other example. In 1914, a single trade separate charter

was issued for the pipefitter members of Local 17. More

recent examples are Local 211 of Houston, Texas, and

Local 250 of Southern California. They are single trade

pipefitter locals that were split off from dual trade locals.

Local 211 was chartered in 1949 and Local 250 in 1938.

8. Sections 8 and 81 of the Constitution have never

been interpreted to prohibit the issuance of a charter

for a building and construction local union with juris-

diction over a single trade. Section 82 defines a building

and construction local as a local union composed of jour-

neymen and apprentices qualified to work under the juris-

diction of the Building and Construction Trades De-

partment of the AFL-CIO. The jurisdiction of the De-

partment, as the name indicates, is the building and

construction industry. When a building and construc-

tion charter is issued with jurisdiction over journeymen

and apprentices of one of the recognized trades in the

plumbing and pipefitting industry, the definition in Sec-

tion 82 has always been considered to have been complied

with. In the Complaint and affidavits filed in this case,

the theory is advanced that Sections 3 and 81 of the

Construction require that each building and construction

local union have jurisdiction over all journeymen and ap-

prentices in the plumbing and pipefitting industry in the

geographical area encompassed by the local’s charter and,

thus, the consolidation order is unconstitutional because

it separates membership along trade lines. The constitu-

tional provisions in question have never been so inter-

preted. Today, there is not one local union that has a

charter which grants full jurisdiction over plumbing and

pipefitting work in the construction industry. Separate

charters have been granted for lead burning work,

sprinkler fitting work, pipeline transportation work, etc.,

to the exclusion of other building and construction local

unions. For example, in northern New Jersey, Sprinkler

Fitters Local 696 has exclusive jurisdiction over sprinkler

work, to the exclusion of other building and construction

local unions.

4. Attached as Exhibit B is a list, as of July 1, 1976,

of the local unions chartered by the United Association.

This list of the classificetions of local unions indicates

the diversity that the United Association has exercised

in the issuance of charters. As of July 1, 1976, there

were 43 local unions with jurisdiction over pipefitters, 55

local unions with jurisdiction over plumbers, 387 with

jurisdiction over the dual trades of plumber and pipe-

fitter, 7 local unions with jurisdiction over lead burners

and 19 with jurisdiction over sprinkler fitters. The single

trade plumber and pipefitter local unions are generally

located in the major cities throughvut the United States

and they have the largest membership of United Asso-

ciation local unions. For example, the single trade Steam-

fitter Local 597 of Chicago and the single trade Plumbers

Local 130 of Chicago have in excess of 15,000 members,

more than the membership in the entire State of New

Jersey with its 27 local unions prior to the Orders of

Consolidation. The dual trade local unions, when initially

chartered, were in outlying areas and more often than

not these were areas where there were not sufficient mem-

bers in each of the trades to support a single trade local

union.

5. The term “combination local” is used in the plain-

tiff’s complaint to describe a local union that has juris-

diction over both the plumber trade and the pipefitter

trade. Technically, under the Constitution, this is not

the proper use of the term. Section 83 of the Constitution

defines a combination local union as a local union that

has been given building construction jurisdiction, either

as a single or dual trade, and also has been given metal

trades jurisdiction. Sections 3 and 81 provide that the

United Association shall charter three types of local un-

ions: a building and construction local union, a metal

trades local union, or a combination local union, that is

a local union with building trades jurisdiction and metal

trades jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the metal trades

is defined in Metal Trades Sections 1 and 5 (pages 120-

122 of the Constitution, Exhibit A) as work related to

the plumbing and pipefitting industry. Examples of what

the United Association considers to be within the metal

trades jurisdiction are the shipbuilding industry, the gas

utility industry, maintenance work in plants and produc-

tion work in fabrication shops. We have chartered 11

marine metal trades local unions, 7 gas worker metal

trades locals and several metal trades locals with juris-

diction over maintenance in a particular shop or terri-

tory. Most local unions with jurisdiction over a single

trade or two trades in the building and construction in-

dustry have also been granted metal trades jurisdiction.

This is the reason why, as the list of classifications (Ex-

hibit B) reflects, the vast majority of local unions are

combination local unions, i.e., they have building and con-

struction jurisdiction and metal trades jurisdiction.

6. Since the time the United Association was first

established, there have been consolidations of local unions.

I have reviewed our records back as far as 1961 and I

find that, since 1961, there have been over 175 mergers,

that is consolidations of local unions. Attached as Exhibit

C is a list of the consolidations during the following

periods:

July 1, 1961-June 30, 1966 26

July 1, 1966-June 30, 1971 : 68

July 1, 1971-June 30, 1976 85

Of the 26 consolidations during the 1961-66 period, three

of the consolidations involved consolidating a local with

jurisdiction over two trades by consolidating the plumber

members of that local with a single trade plumber local

union and the pipefitter members of that local with a

single trade pipefitter local union. Of the 68 consolida-

tions during the 1966-71 period, six involved consolida-

tions of the plumber members of a dual trade local with

a single trade plumbers local and the pipefitter members

of the dual trade local with a single trade pipefitters local.

A seventh consolidation involved a consolidation of the

sprinkler fitter members of Road Sprinkler Fitters Local

of Canada with nine Canadian building and construction

local unions. Of the 85 mergers during the 1971-76 pe-

riod, seven involved a consolidation of the plumber mem-

bers of a dual trade local with a single trade plumber

local and the pipefitter members of the same dual trade

local with a single trade pipefitters local. A red asterisk

has been place on Exhibit C to indicate those eonsolida-

tions that involved a consolidation of the plumber and

steamfitter members of a dual trade local into single

trade local unions along those lines.

7. That consolidations were taking place which re-

sulted in splitting the membership of a local union along

trade lines was a matter of common knowledge. Exhibit

C has been extracted from the General Officers’ Reports

to the 1966, 1971 and 1976 Conventions. At each of

these Conventions, a General Officers’ Report in booklet

form was given to each delegate as he registered. One

of the Convention Committees was the Committee on the

General Officers’ Report. At each of these Conventions,

1966, 1971 and 1976, the Committee on the Officers’ Re-

port submitted a report that was unanimously adopted,

commending the General Officers on their conduct of the

affairs of the United Association during the pr°vious

five years. As stated above, the General Officers’ Report

listed the consolidations that had taken place, including

those where a dual trade local had been consolidated by

the plumber members being consolidated with a single

trade plumbers local and the pipefitter members being

consolidated with a single trade pipefitters local.

8. As the statistics indicate, consolidations of United

Association local unions are on the increase over the

five-year period ending July 1, 1976. There is a reason

for the increase and that reason is that the General

Officers of the United Association have concluded that

the United Association has too many local unions and

that it is in the best interest of the membership of the

United Association, both locally and as a whole, that

there be consolidations. One of the major weaknesses of

unionized segments of the construction industry has been

the fragmented pattern of collective bargaining. Where

you have a number of local unions in a geographical area,

each with the right of bargaining its own collective bar-

gaining agreement, the industry has experienced strikes

and ever escalating wage settlements. To illustrate, Local

X whose collective bargaining agreement expires on May

1 settled for a $1.00 per hour economic settlement. Local

Y, who is in the same general geographie area as Local

X, has an agreement that expires on July 1. Local Y

seeks to improve on Local X’s settlement .and, after a

strike of several weeks or a threatened strike, Local Y

settles for a $1.50 per hour settlement. During the past

ten years, this pattern has repeated itself again and

again. It has repeated itself to such an extent that it has

affected the viability of the union contractor to compete

with his non-union counterpart. Consolidation of local

unions is the only realistic method within the structure

of the United Association for developing long-term wider

patterns of collective bargaining for United Association

that will thereby provide stability for the industry.

9. Consolidations also allow for greater freedom of

movement for contractors and the United Association

members they employ. As it is now, a contractor can be

headquartered in one local union’s jurisdiction and, al-

though he has a regular work force, when he goes 15 or

20 miles in either direction, he is into another local un-

ion’s jurisdiction. He cannot utilize his regular work

force in that other local. He is required to hire locally.

Consolidations of local unions provide the freedom of

movement which is of benefit to both the contractor and

his regular United Association employees.

10. Consolidations of local unions also serve to correct

another serious weakness in the plumbing and pipefitting

industry and that is the problem of reciprocity described

in International Representative Coyne’s affidavit filed in

this case. Because of the cyclical nature of the construc-

tion industry and large industrial construction projects,

many members of the United A-‘ociation travel to find

work in the jurisdiction of othe local unions. Most of

these traveling members never work long enough in the

other local’s jurisdiction to meet the vesting requirements

of the local’s pension plan. Unless there is reciprocity

between fringe benefit funds, the traveler never obtains

the benefit of the contributions that. are paid in on his

behalf when traveling. The United Association has at-

tempted to correct this problem, in part by establishing

in 1966 the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension

Plan. As of August, 1976, 160 United Association local

unions representing over 60,000 members in all geo-

graphical areas were participating in the National Plan.

The National Plan has reciprocal agreements with any

plan of a United Association local union that is willing

to enter into a reciprocal agreement. At the last three

Conventions of the United Association—1966, 1971 and

1976—the delegates have adopted strong resolutions sup-

porting reciprocity and its concept that money follows

the man. Attached as Exhibit D is an excerpt from a

1976 Convention proceeding setting forth the resolutions

and report adopted by the Convention regarding reci-

procity. Consolidations generally result in a merger of

fringe benefits and the adoption of reciprocal arrange-

ments.

11. Consolidations also serve the important purpose of

increasing work opportunities for the members. There

are United Association local unions whose membership

has not grown in years and the local relies on travelers

to fill its manpower needs. A consolidation of such a local

with a local that has unemployment can be of benefit to

the membership of both local unions. It results in a local,

after the consolidation, that can meet manpower require-

ments with its own membership. Except for the very

large industrial projects, such as a power plant, a local

union should have a size membership that is at least equal

to the normal work force requirements in its area. A

local should not be relying on travelers to man its normal

work. Local 334 is a local whose membership has not

grown and who relies on travelers.

12. Local unions that have only one full time officer

cannot, in the judgment of the General Officers of the

United Association, do an adequate job of policing their

collective bargaining agreements or organizing the non-

union contractor that are growing at an absolutely alarm-

ing rate. With the paper work and recordkeeping that

is involved in the operation of any local union and the

meetings regarding contractor and member problems and

the fringe benefit funds, a single full time officer of a

local does not have time to be in the field organizing the

non-union contractor. Consolidation of small local unions

into larger local unions increases the opportunity for the

consolidated local unions to have more representatives in

the field organizing.

13. With regard to the Order of Consolidation in the

present case, Hearing Officer Coyne, in his report, set

forth the reasons why he concluded that the consolida-

tions proposed by International Representative Coyne

were in the best interest of the membership. I adopted

that report in its entirety. In adopting the report, I con-

sidered and rejected the proposals presented by Locals

49, 124, 334 and 765. I also considered and rejected the

proposal of Local 523. As Hearing Officer Coyne pvinted

out, these proposed consolidations did not embrace a wide

enough geographical area. Further, they did nothing to

increase work opportunities for those locals where there

is unemployment. In addition, Local 523’s proposal in-

volved two locals in Area II International Representative

Coyne did not simply recommend consolidations in the

northern part of the State of New Jersey. He recom-

mended four plans that dealt with the entire State of

New Jersey. After receiving his plans, I appointed hear-

ing officers to consider International Representative Coy-

ne’s plan for each of the four areas. The Order of Con-

solidation in the instant case involved Area I. There were

also orders of consolidation in the other three areas.

14. William Wibbelt, in his affidavit, at one point sug-

gests that the Order of Consolidation in the instant case

was politically motivated. I vehemently deny this allega-

tion. Since I became General President in 1971, I have

traveled the length and breadth of this country speaking

at State Pipe Trades Association meetings, at conven-

tions, at conferences for United Association local union

officers and at meetings and conventions of contractors.

In my speeches, I have explained over and over the rea-

sons why there had to be consolidations of local unions

within the United Association and we have been moving

ahead in this direction. For example, in the adjoining

States of New York and Pennsylvania, since July 1 of

1966 there are 26 fewer local unions in the State of New

York and 39 fewer local unions in Pennsylvania, all as

the result of consolidations. The Order of Consolidation

in this case and the other three orders of consolidation

for New Jersey have absolutely nothing to do with poli-

tics. The sole motive for the orders of consolidation was

what was in the best interest of the United Association.

Local unions and their memberships have resented actions

by the General Officers, forcing them to consolidate. In-

itially, this has been true in most instances. However,

once the consolidation takes place, it has been my ex-

perience that, after a year or two elapses, the vast ma-

jority of the membership of the consolidated local union

recognizes that the consolidation was in their best inter-

est. Mr. Wibbelt also suggests that the Area I locals

should have been permitted to consolidate in the same

manner as Area III was consolidated. There are impor-

tant differences in the areas. In Area III, each of the

local unions was a dual trade local. Further, all of the

local unions in the area agreed to voluntarily consolidate.

In Area I, the locals are not all dual trade locals. In

point of fact, the single trade local unions in Area I have

the predominate membership and all the locals could not

agree on a method to consolidate the locals. The single

trade locals were vehemently opposed to dual trade locals

and the dual trade locals were of the same view on a

consolidation into a single trade local for plumbers and

a single trade local for pipefitters.

15. In the complaint and the affidavit of William

Wibbelt, the argument is advanced that there are only

journeymen and apprentice members of the United As-

sociation. Reliance is placed upon Section 153 and Sec-

tion MT-2 which set forth the eligibility requirements for

journeyman membership. These eligibility requirements

apply for each of the trades that constitute the member-

ship of the United Association. Every member of the

United Association has a trade classification, and there

is no member who is classified as simply a journeyman or

an apprentice. Members are classified by trade. Each

member of Local 334 has a trade classification and the

records of the United Association reflect a trade classi-

fication for every member of Local 334. Attached as

Exhibit E is a copy of the standard application form that

is used by all local unions, which requires applicants to

apply for membership by trade.

16. The statement is made in the William Wibbelt

affidavit that a dual trade local can better protect the

trade jurisdiction of the United Association than a single

trade local union. I disagree with this assertion. The

United Association has both dual and single trade locals

that are doing excellent jobs in combating non-union con-

ditions. We have locals that are doing a poor job. In a

large measure, the success of a dual or a single trade local

depends on the resources of the local and the effective-

ness of the leadership. The Order of Consolidation, in

my judgment, results in two single trade local unions

that will have greater resources than the present set up

and will have an experienced leadership. They should

be able to do a more effective job in combating the non-

union element that is growing in northern New Jersey.

The new single trade local unions will have a much

greater territorial jurisdiction and, with the other con-

solidations taking place in the State, there should be

greater stability in collective bargaining throughout the

State of New Jersey. Prior to the consolidation, the aver-

age geographic territory of the New Jersey local union

was 360 square miles. This was the smallest average size

per local union of any state in the United States. The

average area of United Association local unions in neigh-

boring states include 991 average square miles in Dela-

ware, 1360 average square miles in New York and 3200

average square miles in Pennsylvania. It is my under-

standing that the collective bargaining agreements of

Locals 274 and 14 terminate on October 31, 1977. Except

for Locals 49 and 528, the agreements of the other local

unions, namely Locals 84, 124, 326, 334 and 765, expire

on October 31, 1977. In view of these circumstances, the

consolidated locals should be able to negotiate an agree-

ment covering most of their territorial area in a short

period of time.

17. The single trade locals have other advantages for

the membership. Generally, single trade plumber local

unions have controlled their work better than small dual

trade local unions. It is in the dual trade locals where

the small jobbing work and housing has gone almost

eee See a eee — oa

totally non-union. It is my judgment that a single trade

plumbers | al in northern New Jersey has the best

chance of recapturing the work of the plumber. The

single trade pipefitters local, on the other hand, will be

able to more effectively control industrial work. It is the

industrial work where the United Association still has

control but serious inroads are being made by non-union

contractors in this field. There is no question in my mind

that a single trade local can more effectively control in-

dustrial work than a dual trade local. I constantly re-

ceive complaints from contracotrs that men who are

unqualified for industrial pipe work are being referred

to work on industrial projects. A single trade local of

pipefitters should be able to insure that contractors will

have experienced and qualified pipefitters for that class

of work and thereby be able to retain United Association

control in the industrial field.

18. William Wibbelt, in his affidavit, contends. that

Section 86 was only intended to apply where there are

two single trade locals in the same territorial jurisdiction.

I specifically deny this contention. Section 86 has never

been interpreted in such a limited manner. In fact, the

majority of the over 175 consolidations that have taken

place since 1961 were consolidations of local unions that

had separate and distinct territorial jurisdictions. Gen-

erally, they were neighboring unions who were consoli-

dated together to leave a single local union with a much

greater territorial jurisdiction.

19. The William Wibbelt affidavit characterizes the

consolidation as placing the consolidated members in Jer-

sey City Locals 14 and 274. Such a characterization is

not accurate. Locals 14 and 274 are not the same two

locals that existed prior to the Order of Consolidation. As

the result of the consolidation Locals 274 and 14 have a

much greater territorial jurisdiction and a much larger

membership. It is this consolidated membership that will

adopt new by-laws for the locals and will determine where

meetings will be held and where the local will be head-

quartered. The membership may decide that the local will

be headquartered at some other location than Jersey City.

In Area IV of the State where Local 124 of Atlantic City

was consolidated with Local 322 of Camden, I have been

advised that the consolidated local union has decided to

hold monthly membership meetings at a place half way

between Atlantic City and Camden. The consolidations

in the instant case may result in some inconvenience in

traveling further distances to meetings but any travel

disadvantage is far outweighed by the advantages flowing

from the consolidation.

20. The complaint and the affidavits allege that there

are advantages to belonging to a local where the member-

ship does both pipefitting and plumbing. I don’t perceive

such an advantage. As the result of the consolidation,

plumbers will be performing plumbing work and pipe-

fitters pipefitting work. You will not have both trades

competing for the same work. The only disadvantage I

perceive is for the individual who has performed the

work of the other trade for many years and is experi-

enced and desirous of continuing to work at the other

trade. For example, a plumber who has worked at indus-

trial work for many years. I have attempted to take care

of that problem by providing in the Order of Consolida-

tion that members will be afforded the opportunity of

applying for a change of trade classification. Such trade

classifications will be approved if the applicant has the

requisite qualifications. With regard to the matter of

work opportunity, the Order of Consolidation results in

two single trade local unions that, in my opinion, should

be strong organizations that can recapture work which

is now being performed non-union, thereby creating great- _

er work opportunities for the membership of each of the

two single trade locals.

21. A comment should be made regarding Local 334’s

utilization of a single out of work list on which men are

listed in the order in which they are registered. As I

understand it, Local 334 asserts that they refer in the

order in which men are registered, irrespective of wheth-

er the contractor wants a plumber or pipefitter or a man

with special skills, such as pipe welding or refrigeration

fitting. The use of a single out of work list for referral

is not typical for dual trade United Association local

unions. Most dual trade local unions use multiple lists

that reflect the separate trades and the special skills

among each of the trades. In the model hiring provisions

that the General Office prepared for local unions several

years and, the hiring provisions provided for multiple

lists. To refer men in rotation without consideration of

their trade and special skills is an extremely uneco-

nomical practice that can only hurt the union contractor

and increase his costs of doing business. If a union con-

tractor has need for a plumber for jobbing work, it makes

little economic sense to refer him a pipefitter. My experi-

ence has been that it will take a few days but the con-

tractor will find that he is paying for either no work or

poor workmanship. He will then lay the man off and

obtain a replacement. The allegations in the Complaint

and the affidavits that the membership of the United

Association and, more particularly, the membership of

Local 334 are universal journeymen is, for the reasons

stated in the affidavit of Training Director George H.

Bliss, just not true.

22. In the complaint, the allegation is made that Local

334 has been denied an appeal to the General Executive

Board. Under the Constitution, there is no right of ap-

peal. Section 86 requires the General President to obtain

the approval of the General Executive Board before an

order of consolidation is issued. The General Executive

Board did consider and approve the Order of Consolida-

tion that is the subject matter of this suit at a meeting

held in Lafayette, Indiana, on August 3-10, 1977. Sec-

tions 218 and 219 of the Constitution have never been

interpreted or construed to sanction an appeal to the

General Executive Board on a matter that has already

been considered and decided by the Board.

23. Under date of August 4, 1977, Proposition GP-7,

attached as Exhibit F, together with enclosures was

mailed to each General Executive Board member. On

August 8-10, 1977, the General Executive Board held a

meeting in Lafayette, Indiana. Shortly before adjourn-

ment of the meeting on August 9, the Board was briefly

advised of Proposition GP-7. Because some of the Board

members were in transit to Lafayette and had not re-

ceived my letter of August 4, 1977, with enclosures, each

Board member was given a copy of the transcript of the

hearing for Area I, a copy of Hearing Officer Coyne’s

report and a copy of my proposed Order of Consolidation.

The Board was to study the material before the next

day’s meeting. The Board reconvened on August 10,

1977. Proposition GP-7 was taken up as the first order

of business and, after a thorough discussion of this prop-

osition, it was moved, seconded and carried to approve

proposition GP-7. All Board members were present and

voted except William Gobile who was absent due to

illness.

24. Allegations have been made to the effect that there

will be hostility and jurisdictional disputes between a

single trade plumbers local and a single trade pipefitters

local. Twenty or thirty years ago, that would probably

have been an accurate statement. Time has a way of

healing and today a spirit of cooperation does exist be-

tween the single trade plumber and the single trade pipe-

fitter local unions. In recent years, very few jurisdiction-

al disputes have arisen between single trade plumber and

single trade pipefitter local unions.

/3s/ MARTIN J. WARD

General President

Subscribed and sworn before me this 9th day of Septem-

ber, 1977.

/3s/ GENE M. LEAKEY

Notary Public, D.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 77-1769

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

Plaintiff,

VS.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF MOTION

and :

MOTION TO REMAND

TO: McCARTER & ENGLISH, EsQs.

550 Broad Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Attorneys for Defendant

SIRS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, September

16, 1977, at 9:00 o’clock in the forenoon, or as soon

thereafter as counsel may be heard, plaintiffs will move

the Court, at the United States Post Office and Court

House Building, Federal Square, in the City of Newark,

New Jersey, for an Order remanding the above-entitled

cause from the United States District Court for the Dis-

trict of New Jersey to the Superior Court of New Jer-

sey, Chancery Division—Morris County, from which it

was removed on or about August 25, 1977 pursuant to

Petition of UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY-

MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING

AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY, the defendant in this

action ;

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the plain-

tiffs will advance the following grounds in support of

the within Motion:

(A) That this action was removed improvidently and

without jurisdiction, as the claims and rights of plain-

tiffs in said action against said defendants originate in

the law of the State of New Jersey and do not arise un-

der the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,

to wit, as asserted by the removing party, Section 301

of the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended

(— U.S.C. — —) within the purview of Title 28, U.S.C.

§ 1441(b) in that no federal question is involved in said

action, and that accordingly removal of said action with-

out regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties

is not warranted under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441,

(B) That this is not a proper case for resolution by

the Federal courts under the aforesaid Section 301 of

the Labor-Management Relations Act and removal would

result in needless intervention by the federal courts in

the internal affairs of unions because this dispute is not

resolvable on the Constitution, a written instrument of

definite construction and tenor, in that the defendants

do not wish to rely on the plain meaning of said Consti-

tution but instead urge intra-union custom and practice

in support of the Order of Consolidation which is the

subject of the instant Complaint.

the Federal courts under the aforesaid Section 301 of

the Labor-Management Relations Act and removal would

result in needless intervention by the federai courts in

the internal affairs of unions because there is no allega-

tion that this intra-union dispute has “traumatic indus-

trial and economic repurcussions” or even that it has an

impact on the collective bargaining relationship.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support

of this Motion, plaintiffs will rely upon the Memorandum

of Law, and upon all other papers heretofore filed and

served with regard to this action.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the

same time and place, plaintiffs will move that costs be

taxed in accordance with law.

Respectfully submitted,

CRANER & NELSON

By: /s/ John A. Craner

JOHN A. CRANER

DATED: September 16, 1977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 77-1769

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

Plaintiff,

VS.

UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES

OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE

UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,

Defendant.

ANSWER—Filed October 4, 1977

Defendant, United Association of Journeymen and Ap-

prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of

the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, having a prin-

cipal place of business at 901 Massachusetts Avenue,

Northwest, Washington, District of Columbia, 20001, by

way of answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff, Local No.

334, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices

of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United

States and Canada, respectfully says:

AS TO THE FIRST COUNT

1. The allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are

admitted.

2. Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

the allegations contained in paragraph 5, and, therefore,

leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

3. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 6

except that it denies that such charters as have been

granted to local unions composed entirely of plumbers or

entirely of pipefitters pre-existed the original formation

of the Defendant International. Defendant states that

subsequent to the formation of the Defendant Interna-

tional, charters have been issued to local unions com-

prised solely of plumbers or solely of pipefitters.

4. The allegations of paragraph 7 are admitted.

5. The allegations of paragraph 8 are denied.

6. Upon information and belief Defendant denies that

Plaintiff has serviced the Morris County area since being

chartered approximately 70 years ago. It is further de-

nied that the membership of Plaintiff is comprised of

approximately 185 Journeymen and Apprentices. With

respect to the remaining allegations of paragraph 9, De-

fentant does not have sufficient knowledge or information

to form a belief as to their truth or falsity, and, there-

fore, leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

7. The allegations of paragraph 10 are admitted.

8. Defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of

the allegations of paragraph 11, and, therefore, leaves

the Plaintiff to its proof. Defendant specifically states

that the reference to a “combination local” contained in

paragraph 11 is an improper reference in that Plaintiff

is not.referring to itself as a “combination local” as that

term is utilized in Section 81 of the Constitution. Addi-

tionally, if Plaintiff refers both journeymen plumbers and

pipefitters to jobs from a single hiring list, regardless of

job requirements, Plaintiff is not acting in accordance

with established procedures for job referrals or in ac-

cordance with the Constitution.

9. The allegations of paragraph 12 are denied.

10. The allegations of paragraph 13 are admitted.

12. It is admitted that in, or about, May, 1977, Local

11. The allegations of paragraph 14 are denied.

334, along with the consent of Locals 765, 124 and 49,

petitioned the General President for permission to con-

solidate Locals 384, 765, 124, 49 and 523 into one com-

bination Local with Local 334 to be the surviving Local.

The remaining allegations of paragraph 15 are denied.

13. The allegations of paragraph 16.are admitted.

14. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 17,

it is admitted that on May 10, 1977 a hearing on the

Order to Show Cause was held under the auspices of a

Hearing Officer appointed by the General President. It is

further admitted that Plaintiff and certain specific locals

affected by the plan of consolidation objected to that plan.

It is denied that all other locals objected to the plan of

consolidation. Defendant states that a majority of the

unions involved in the plan of consolidation approved of

the same and supported it. It is further admitted that

Local 334 reiterated its petition for consolidation, which

petition was not in accordance with the plan of consolida-

tion proposed by International Representative Coyne.

15. The allegations of paragraph 18 are admitted.

16. The allegations of paragraph 19 are denied.

17. The allegations of paragraph 20 are admitted.

18. With respect to the allegations of paragraph 21,

it is admitted that the Order for Consolidation divides

Plaintiff along craft lines and that plumber members of

Local 334 are to become members of surviving Local 14,

while pipefitter members are to become members of sur-

viving Local 274. The remaining allegations of para-

graph 21 are denied. Defendant affirmatively states that

the locations of the offices of surviving Locals 14 and 274

have not yet been determined. Defendant further states

that those members of Local 334 who are in fact qualified

as both plumbers and pipefitters will, under specific con-

ditions, have the option of becoming members of either

Local 14 or Local 274.

“«

19. The allegations of paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

27, 28 and 29 are denied.

AS TO THE SECOND COUNT

1. Defendant repeats its answers to the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive of the

First Count, as if set forth herein in full and makes them

a part hereof.

2. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs 2,

3 and 4,

8. Defendant repeats its answers to the allegations

contained in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the First

Count, as if the same were set forth herein in full and

makes them a part hereof.

AS TO THE THIRD COUNT

1. Defendant repeats its answers to the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive of the

First Count, as if the same were set forth herein in full

and makes them a part hereof.

2. The allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied.

8. Defendant repeats its answers to the allegations

contained in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the First Count

as if the same were set forth herein in full and makes

them a part hereof.

FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted.

SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff, and other local unions in the State of New

Jersey, were advised by International Representative

Coyne that the United Association believed there to be

excessive and superfluous local unions within the State

of New Jersey. Such advice was given in January, 1977.

International Representative Coyne advised all local un-

ions within the State of New Jersey that they should

provide a voluntary plan of consolidation of local unions

not later than January 31, 1977, for consolidation by the

General President of the United Association. Such local

unions were informed that should they not submit volun-

tary plans for consolidation by January 31, 1977, Inter-

national Representative Coyne would prepare recommen-

dations for consolidation to the General President for his

consideration and exercise of judgment pursuant to the

Union Constitution. Such local unions failed to provide

any plan for consolidation by January 31, 1977. By their

failure, such local unions, including Plaintiff, have waived

the right to object to the plan for consolidation as sug-

gested by International Representative Coyne, presented

at a hearing held May 10, 1977, adopted by the General

President of the United Association, and approved by the

Executive Board of the United Association.

THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is estopped from complaining as to the con-

solidation of local unions.

FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff participated in a full and fair hearing re-

specting a plan for consolidation of local unions within

the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff submitted a plan for

consolidation at a hearing held May 10, 1977. Such plan

was considered by the Hearing Officer appointed by the

General President and was fully discussed in a report

of hearing filed with the General President of the United

Association. The plan for consolidation actually adopted

by the United Association differs from that suggested by

Local 334 at the hearing on May 10, 1977. The plan, as

adopted, is a reasonable, rational plan for consolidation

fully supported by credible evidence in the form of testi-

mony taken at such hearing, and is a superior plan to

that proposed by Plaintiff.

FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Neither the General President of the United Associa-

tion nor the Executive Board has abused its discretion in

adopting a plan for consolidation of local unions located

within the State of New Jersey.

SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The consolidation of local unions within the State of

New Jersey, as adopted by the General President of the

United Association and approved by the Executive Board,

serves the greater good of the majority of members of the

United Association within the State of New Jersey.

Therefore, more damage will be caused by the granting

of an injunction preventing the full and complete imple-

mentation of such consolidation than will be caused by

the denial of such injunction.

SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.

EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The consolidation will not result in any immediate

reparable harm to the Plaintiff.

NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The United Association has, in the consolidation, fully

adhered to the provisions of the Constitution of the Unit-

ed Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the

Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States

and Canada. It has not breached any contractual obliga-

tion to the Plaintiff.

McCaRTER & ENGLISH

Attorneys for Defendant

By: /s/ RICHARD C. COOPER

A Member of the Firm

Of Counsel:

O’DONOGHUE & O’ DONOGHUE

1912 Sunderland Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

/s/ [Illegible]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 77-1769

UNITED ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 334,

va Plaintiff,

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.