# Appendix — United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0244%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 383 U.S. 715 ## Text ‘ ea) ce Py ' ‘ .s of America, 313 F. 2d 108 (C. C. A. 6, 1963); White Oak Coal Co., inc. v. United Mine Workers of America (Opinion May 24, 1963), ... F. 2d ... (C. C. A. 6, 1963); Joe R. Allen et al. v. United Mine Workers of America (Opinion June 26, 1963), ... F. 24... (CC. C. A. 6, 1963). SLR BLD LEA RENTPRR SLOAN — 5la — Opinion doing business with Gibbs would not prevent the activity from constituting a secondary boycott insofar as Gibbs was concerned, and therefore actionable by him as such. As stated in the case of Flame Coal Co. v. UMW, 303 F. 9d 39 (C. C. A. 6, 1962). ‘‘This union cannot escape the charge of secondary boycott because it chose to attack on all fronts at once, claiming its desire and objective to be the organization of all involved, whether producers, trans- porters, or processers of coal. United Mine Workers of America v. Osborne Mining Co., 279 F. 2d 716, 723.” Finally, upon the issue of secondary boycott it is con- tended by the defendant that any union activity here involved would in no event constitute an actionable sec- ondary boycott as to Gibbs for the reason that, as mine superintendent for Grundy, he was not such an ‘‘other person’’ within the contemplation of See. 8 (b) (4) (B) as to be the object or victim of a proscribed secondary boycott, but rather he was a part of Grundy, the primary employer. The relationship of Gibbs to Grundy, namely that he was hired as mine superintendent for Grundy and as a contract coal hauler, is undisputed in the record. Therefore, whether he or is not such ‘‘other person’’, the ceasing of business with whom may constitute an actionable secondary boycott, is a question of law. If the language of the statute is to be literally inter- preted, then Gibbs is clearly an ‘‘other person’’ from Grundy, as would be any officer or employee of Grundy. However, as stated in Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, 366 U. S. 667: ‘‘This provision could not be literally construed; otherwise it would ban most strikes historically con- sidered to be lawful, so-called primary activity.”’ itis cat onicsrninte re geereieal aaah re ae ee o2a — Opinion Likewise, as noted in Seafarers International Union y. NLRB (1959), 265 F. 2d 585, when read literally, the Act would outlaw picketing at the primary employer’s premises so that the language must be construed in the light Congressional intent and in the light of the proviso that nothing in the Act shall be construed to make any primary strike or primary picketing unlawful. In support of its contention that Gibbs is not such ‘‘other person’’ from Grundy as to be the object of a secondary boycott for activities directed at Grundy, the defendant relies principally upon the case of Seeley y, Brotherhood of Painters, 308 F. 2d 52 (5 C. C. A., 1962). In that ease the plaintiff, in one of several counts, alleged that he had a cause of action against the defendant union under 29 U. S. C. 187, in that the defendant caused the plaintiff’s employer to discharge him. The Court, in holding that the count failed to state a cause of action, stated that discharging an employee did not constitute ‘‘eeasing to do business with any other person,’’ stating further, ‘‘We do not think the relation of employer and employee, including one employed as a supervisor, is that of ‘any other person’ within Section 158 (b) (4).’’ The Court reached this conclusion on the ground that ‘‘no secondary boycott was involved in this ease,’’ which is rather unsatisfactory reasoning in that it begs the ques- tion. The defendant relies upon other authority as requiring that the plaintiff be a ‘‘neutral’’ before he is entitled to the benefit of the statutory secondary boycott action.* That this is not an accurate statement of law is apparent when it is recalled that 29 U. S. C. 187 (b) provides that 8 Truck Drivers and H. Local 728 v. Empire State Express, 293 F. 2d 414 (5 C. C. A. 1961) cert. denied 368 U. S. 931 (1961):Building Service Employees v. NLRB, 313 F. 2d 880 (D. C. Cir, 1963): International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 181 F. 2d 34 (C. C. A. 2, 1950). Opinion «whoever shall be injured’’ by a secondary boycott may recover, including the employer with whom the primary dispute exists. While the word ‘‘neutral’’ may be useful in identifying a case of secondary boycott in a clear and classical ease of secondary boycott, little help is needed in identifying a clear and classical secondary boycott. The word ‘‘neutral’’ can be misleading in other situa- tions, as for example where the union strikes on all fronts at onee, as was the case in Flame Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 303 F. 2d 39 (C. C. A. 6, 1962), where the Court held that such union activity did not escape the charge of secondary boycott. If two employers each simultaneously has a dispute with the same union, they may be neutral as to each other’s dispute, but they are in no sense neutral as to the union. While a correct result may have been reached in each of the foregoing cases relied upon by the defendant as authority for excluding an employee or supervisor from the meaning of ‘‘other person’’ in See. 8 (b) (4) (B), the reasons given for reaching such conclusion are often unsatisfactory. Reference to the full wording of the sec- tion will more properly reveal the meaning that must necessarily be placed upon the words ‘‘other person’’. When it is noted that the proviso expressly excludes primary strikes and primary picketing, it is apparent that employees and supervisors of any struck or picketed primary employer who may lose their employment are | not within the meaning of ‘‘other persons’’ and would have no statutory action for any loss so occasioned. It is apparent from the foregoing that Gibbs, in his capacity as mine superintendent for Grundy, would not be an ‘‘other person’’ as those words are used in the statute. Although, as found by the jury, an object of the picketing of Grundy was to cause it to cease employment 4 See cases cited in Footnote No. 2, supra. b Be 3 3 4 a — ia — Opinion of Gibbs, and Grundy may have been ‘‘neutral’’ or gee. ondary to the dispute between UMW and Gibbs, there also clearly existed a primary dispute between UMW and Grundy. It follows that the verdict of the jury awarding damages to Gibbs upon his statutory claim for loss of employment must be set aside. It does not necessarily follow, however, that, even though Gibbs in his capacity as a mine superintendent and in his claim for loss of employment is not an ‘‘other person’’ from Grundy, that he is therefore in his capacity as a coal trucker and in his claim for loss of the trucking contract not an ‘‘other person’’ from Grundy. The evi- dence is undisputed that Gibbs was an _ independent trucker engaged in this business with and for persons and companies other than Grundy. He did not work only for Grundy in this respect. It would therefore ap- pear that in his capacity as an independent trucker he would be an ‘‘other person’’ from Grundy and would be entitled to a statutory action under the secondary boy- cott law upon this claim. Having determined that the jury verdict should be sustained as to the statutory cause of action for loss by Gibbs of his trucking contract, it would follow that the defendant’s contention that the Court was without juris- diction of the common law conspiracy action must fail.’ Even though the federal statutory action should fail both upon the employment and the trucking claim, it cannot be said that the federal question was plainly wanting in substance. Under these circumstances, in accordance with the case of Hurn v. Cursler, #89 U. S. 238, the Court would retain jurisdiction te dispose of the non-federal common law claim. 5 United Mine Workers of America v. Meadow Creek Coal Co.. 243 F. 2d 52 (C C. A. 6, 1959) cert. denied 359 U. S. 1013; Flame Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 303 F. 2d 39 (C. C. A. 6, 1962). — Opinion Another series of grounds in the defendant’s motion for a judgment n.o.v. or a new trial are directed toward alleged errors in the jury verdict in finding that the defendant conspired to wrongfully interfere with the plaintiff ’s employment contract and coal hauling contract with Grundy. It is the contention of the defendant in this regard that the evidence fails to support the jury verdict, particularly in view of the legal principles that (a) the evidence must be clear and convincing for a labor union to be held responsible in a federal court action, in view of Section 6 of the Norris-Laguardia Act; (b) a union is under no legal obligation to disavow un- lawful acts of its members; (c) welfare assistance given members, including pickets, by the union does not con- stitute ratification of any unlawful conduct by such mem- bers or pickets; and (d) federal law has preempted the field of non-violent picketing so that no verdict could be awarded upon a state common law conspiracy charge not based on violence. The jury was correctly charged upon all of these matters. The Court is of the opinion _ that there is evidence in the record, when the testimony is viewed as a whole, to support the verdict of the jury in this respect. The contention that 29 U. S. C. 187 and the other provisions of the National Labor-Management Relations Act preempted the field of labor controversy or precluded any common law action of conspiracy has been decided against the UMW in several cases in this circuit, the most recent being the case of White Oak Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, ... F. 2d ... (C. C. A. 6, decided May 24, 1963). Moreover, there was evidence of violence, threats of violence, and mass picket- ing, any of which was sneh unlawful conduct as to sup- port a verdict based upon common law conspiracy. A further series of errors alleged by the defendant are directed to the Court’s charge to the jury. It is the con- — 56a — Opinion tention of the defendant that the Court was in error jy declining a special request of the defendant relating to a requirement that a neutral exist before an actionable secondary boycott would exist. The Court has herein- above dealt with the possible misleading nature of the word ‘‘neutral’’ when used in defining a See. 8 (b) (4) unfair labor practice. It is believed that the charge as given correctly defined the statutory claim. Moreover, the action of the Court in setting aside the jury verdict on the statutory claim of interference with the plaintiff’s employment contract would render this ground of the defendant’s motion moot. The other alleged errors in the charge were matters not raised at the time of the trial as required by Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is believed that in any event no error was committed in the matters complained of. A further ground for new trial relied upon by the de- fendant is the alleged improper argument of the plain- tiff’s counsel in his closing argument. Among other re- marks, counsel for the plaintiff accused the defendant of not caring a snap of the fingers for the law and of attempts to bludgeon or starve his client out of the law- suit. The Court is of the opinion that the argument was improper. While an advocate may share his client’s prejudices against an adversary, he cannot properly share them with the jury, particularly when they do not relate to any matters in evidence. However, the Court is of the opinion that the argument was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial, but should rather be taken into con- sideration by the Court upon the issue of excessiveness of the verdict. Further grounds relied upon by defendant in its motion relate to the alleged lack of evidence on the issue of damage and the alleged excessiveness of the verdict in this respect. The only evidence in the record that might = Opinion support any recovery of damage with reference to the loss of the plaintiff’s trucking contract was the plaintiff’s own estimate of the profit he would have made on the contract, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 34, in the amount of $14,029. His actual experience in the coal trucking business reflected substantial losses, rather than profits, for preceding years. Not only is there an absence of credible evidence to support the estimate but the estimate is admittedly based upon carrying loads sub- stantially in excess of the permissible weight limits ap- plicable to the plaintiff’s trucks under the laws of Ten- nessee. The issue here is not the validity or invalidity of the coal hauling contract, or the right of a third party, the UMW, to assert its invalidity, as apparently argued in the plaintiff’s brief. The issue here is as to the pro- bative value of the evidence of the loss of prospective profits when based upon prospective violation of truck weight laws. The Court is of the opinion that such evi- dence has no probative value.* Under these circumstances the record is devoid of any evidence upon which a jury might return a verdict awarding any damages for loss by the plaintiff of his trucking contract and the defend- ant’s motion for a directed verdict upon this issue made at the conclusion of the evidence should have been sus- tained. With respect to the verdict awarding damages unto the plaintiff for loss of his employment contract, the Court is of the opinion that there is evidence in the record upon which a verdict might be sustained. How- ever, without here reviewing the evidence relating to damages sustained by reason of loss of the employment contract, other than to note that the employment con- tract was terminable at will by either party, the Court is of the opinion that the verdict of the jury upon this 6 Shelley v. Hart, 297 P. 82 (Calif., 1931). See also 25 C. J. S., Dam- ages, Sec. 42(B) and 15 Am. Jur., Damages, Secs. 158, 159. ong — 58a — Opinion issue is clearly excessive to the extent of $30,000. Like. wise in reviewing the evidence and reflecting upon the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel to the jury, the Court is of the opinion that the jury verdict upon the issue of punitive damages is clearly excessive to the extent 95f $55,000. A remittitur in the sum of $30,000 upon the issue of loss of the plaintiff’s employment contract and in the sum of $55,000 upon the issue of punitive damages is therefore suggested, or otherwise a new trial will be ordered. The Court has reviewed Grounds 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the defendant’s motion relating to the admissibility of various items of evidence upon the trial, and is of the opinion that these grounds are without merit and should be overruled. It therefore results that the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of loss of the plaintiff’s employment contract by reason of a statutory secondary boycott will be set aside. The verdict of the jury award- ing damages unto the plaintiff on the issue of loss of the plaintiff’s trucking contract by reason of both a statutory secondary boycott and a common law conspiracy will be set aside. The defendant’s motion for a judgment n.o.v. upon these issues should be sustained. Unless the plain- tiff shall agree to accept a remittitur of $30,000 in the jury verdict on the issue of damages by reason of loss of the plaintiff’s employment contract as a result of a common law conspiracy and to accept a remittitur of $55,000 in the jury verdict on the issue of punitive dam- ages, the Court believes that these issues should be sub- mitted to another jury and a new trial will be ordered. An order will enter accordingly. FRANK W. WILSON, United States District Judge. — 59a — Judgment—August 28, 1963 JUDGMENT—FILED AUGUST 28, 1963. This cause having heretofore been heard by the Court on the motion of the defendant, United Mine Workers of America, for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury and in the alternative for a new trial, and the Court having fully considered said motion and each ground thereof hath filed herein its Opinion setting forth fully the conclusions reached, which Opinion is made a part of the record in this case. It is accordingly Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. on the issue of the loss of plaintiff’s trucking contract, which issue is based upon alleged statutory secondary boycott and also upon alleged common law conspiracy, be and the same is hereby sustained and the judgment heretofore entered is accordingly modified so as to eliminate therefrom the award of $14,500.00 made by the jury to the plaintiff on the aforesaid claim of loss on his trucking contract. It is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that, in accordance with said Opinion, the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. on the issue of loss of plaintiff’s employ- ment contract be and the same is hereby sustained insofar as said motion is directed to the assertion of said claim upon the basis of secondary boycott but said motion for judgment n. o. v. on this issue is overruled insofar as this claim is based upon alleged common law conspiracy. The Court is further of the opinion and for the reasons set forth in its said Opinion doth find and decree that the verdict of the jury in awarding $60,000.00 to the plain- tiff for loss on his employment contract is clearly exces- sive to the extent of $30,000.00, and is also of the opinion and for the reasons set forth in its Opinion doth find and decree that upon the issue of punitive damages the ver- me — 60a — bel CA Judgment—August 28, 1963 dict of the jury is clearly excessive to the extent of $55,000.00. Accordingly, a remittitur in the sum of $30, 000.00 upon the issue of loss in connection with the plain- tiff’s employment contract, and a remittitur in the sum of $55,000.00 upon’ the issue of punitive damages is sug- gested. The plaintiff has now filed a written acceptance of the suggested remittitur. It is therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the plaintiff, Paul Gibbs, have and re- cover of the defendant, United Mine Workers of America, the sum of $75,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from and after the date of entry of this judgment. The various grounds of the motion for judgment n. o. v. and for new trial are referred to in this judgment and overruled as shown in the Opinion of the Court filed herein. The clerk of this court is directed to pay the amount of this judgment unto the plaintiff and the law firm of VanDerveer, Brown & Siener, attorneys for the plaintiff, when the said sum and its accrued interest thereon have been paid into the hands of the clerk of this court. Approved for Entry. FRANK W. WILSON, United States District Judge. Civil Filed Aug. 26, 1963. Ent’d. Order Bk. 17, pp. 276, 277. JAMES W. PARROTT, Clerk, By HATTIE SAULPAW, Dep. Clk. “ * * * * * + — 6la — Order Correcting Clerical Error in Judgment CONSENT TO REDUCE VERDICT— FILED AUGUST 26, 1963. Comes Paul Gibbs, the plaintiff in the above styled ac- tion, by and through his attorneys, Van Derveer, Brown & Siener, and accepts the remittitur suggested by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion filed July 18, 1963, and consents that the verdict of One Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($174,500.00) rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant may be reduced to the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). VAN DERVEER, BROWN & SIENER, By: JOE VAN DERVEER. ORDER—FILED SEPTEMBER 4, 1963. Upon it being made to appear to the Court in this cause that a clerical error was made in entering the judgment herein under date of August 26, 1963, whereby the next to the last paragraph of the judgment reads as follows: ‘“‘The various grounds of the motion for judgment n. o. v. and for new trial are referred to in this judg- ment and overruled as shown in the Opinion of the Court filed herein.’’ and the same should be corrected to read as follows: ‘“‘The various grounds of the motion for judgment n. o. v. and for new trial not referred to in this judg- ment are overruled as shown in the opinion of the Court filed herein.’’ It is therefore Ordered that the next to the last para- graph of the judgment entered in this cause under date of August 26, 1963 be corrected to read as follows: — — 62a — Notice of Appeal by Defendant ‘‘The various grounds of the motion for judgment n. o. v. and for new trial not referred to in this judg- ment are overruled as shown in the opinion of the Court filed herein.’’ Approved for Entry. FRANK W. WILSON, United States District Judge. * * * 7 * * * NOTICE OF APPEAL—FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 1963. Notice is hereby given that the United Mine Workers of America, the defendant in the above-styled case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the judgment entered on November 27, 1962, and from the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and defendant’s alternative motion for a new trial, which judgment was entered in this action on August 26, 1963, and thereafter modified by order dated September 4, 1963, to correct a clerical error. WILLARD P. OWENS, 900 Fifteenth Street, N. W., Washington 5, D. C., EK. H. RAYSON, R. R. KRAMER, 904 Burwell Building, Knoxville, Tennessee, Attorneys for Defendant, United Mine Workers of America. * * * * . * * ———— Summary of Proceedings in Chambers _ on NOTICE OF APPEAL—FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 1963. Notice Is Hereby Given that Paul Gibbs, the plaintiff in the above-styled case, hereby appeais to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from the final judgment entered in this action on the 26th day of August, 1963. This 25th day of September, 1963. VAN DERVEER, BROWN & SIENER, By: JOE VAN DERVEER, The James Building, Chattanooga, Tennessee. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS. Gibbs v. U. M. W. A.—U. 8S. D. C., E. D. Tenn., 8. D. No. 3771. 11/ 7/62 Conference in Chambers prior to the beginning of the trial. (Not reported.) “ Conference in Chambers following swearing of the jury. (Not reported.) * Conference in Chambers at the end of Mr. Gibbs’ testimony (first appearance) with regard to Mr. Kramer’s objection to admission of Exhibits P-13 and P-14. Motion heard and argued. Rul- ing: Exhibits 13 and 14 admitted and allowed to be filed. n Conference in Chambers prior to beginning of the afternoon session. (Not reported.) 11/ 9/62 Conference in Chambers following testimony of Mr. Gibbs, re: a my, « | os ae roa ' | ee aR EN ER REE Rw ec: 11/ 9/62 — 64a — Summary of Proceedings in Chambers 1st, with respect to defendant’s objection to the admission of Exhibits P-27 and P-28 (objection heard and argued). The Court said: ‘‘T think in this instance, on these two ex- hibits, 27 and 28, that the objection of the defendant should be sustained, at least to this extent, and that is that any projection of profit from the hauling contract should be limited to the coal for which there has been estab- lished a market in the proof, not to the pro- ductive capacity. . . . So what I am say- ing is that you will be permitted to make a projection such as this, to the limit of 35,000 tons, but beyond 35,000 tons I feel that it is too speculative to allow the jury to consider it. Now as to the other grounds of the objec- tion, some of them I think should be de- veloped in cross-examination as to the ques- tion of the accuracy of the cost that they have deducted.’’ 2nd, with respect to defendant’s motion with re- gard to the absence of evidence as to plaintiff’s obtaining State certificate as a coal-hauling con- tractor. (Motion heard and argued.) The Court said: ‘“*As to the legal questions that you have raised about the statute, the certificate of a contract hauler, I think that is a matter that we can give careful attention to after the trial, and it should not prevent the plaintiff from going forward at this time.”’ 3rd, with respect to defendant’s objection to the admission of Exhibit P-33 on the issue of future _ 11/13/62 — 65a — Summary of Proceedings in Chambers profits or damages based on any Taft-Hartley violation. (Objection heard and argued.) The Court said: ‘‘Of course, I understand your objection at this point to this exhibit is based upon the proposition that there is no evidence in the record from which there could be a jury issue on any Taft-Hartley violation or any con- spiracy that caused the termination of these leases; therefore any evidence on this issue is not material. Now, if you have any other basis for objecting . . .”’ Mr. Kramer: Yes, we do, your Honor. (Further argument heard.) The Court said: ‘‘All right. Well, I believe the objection to the Exhibit P-33 should be overruled, and we will proceed accordingly. Again, we can always pass on this problem at the time we consider what issues we submit to the jury.’’ (See Appendix B.) Conference in Chambers at 8:00 a. m. prior to the resumption of the trial in open court, re: 1st, Mr. Kramer’s motion to dismiss the entire action, first, on jurisdictional grounds, etc. (Mo- tion heard and argued.) The Court said: ‘*All right. With respect to the overall mo- tion of the defendant, I fee! the Court should overrule the motion. Now, with respect to those four possible bases of having a sec- ondary boycott—in other words, I’m in a quandary here whether by ruling on the mo- tion with respect to the overall motion you have made, whether I am at the same time — 66a — Summary of Proceedings in Chambers ruling upon the possible existence under the proof of all four of the suggested boycotts.” Mr. Kramer: May it please the Court, your Honor might reach some such conclusion. | have four additional motions reaching each of these possible . The Court: Well, I think that I shall overrule the motion of the defendant with respect to there being no jurisdiction, either alleged or established in the proof, of any—by any viola- tion of the Taft-Hartley Act. 2nd, Mr. Kramer’s motions with reference to whether or not a secondary boycott existed as to George Ramsay, Grundy Mining Co., Tennes- see Consolidated, and Tennessee Products. (Mo- tions heard and argued.) The Court said: ‘‘Its the opinion of the Court that the evi- dence does not establish that a violation— there’s no evidence upon which a jury might find that a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act existed insofar as George Ramsay was con- cerned. . . . So that motion will be sus- tained insofar as the secondary boycott is claimed toward George Ramsay (C-7-23). ‘‘Well, with respect to the motion insofar as Tennessee Products is concerned, I believe the motion should be sustained (D-3-23) Any conclusion by the jury on either of those issues, it seems to me, would have to be speculation. I believe the motion should be sustained (D-4-22). ‘*T am unable to see where there is any evi- dence in the record that would warrant sub- — — 67a — Hearing in Chambers mitting the case on the issue of damages as to the Tennessee Consolidated (D-11-7). ‘I believe, however, as to that motion, un- less there is something further on it, that the motion as to Grundy (Mining Co.) should be overruled and the jury can be ready to pass upon the question—as to whether or not there was a secondary boycott, as to whether or not there was a conspiracy, as to whether or not there were damages’’ (E-3-19). 11/18/62 Also, at this conference in Chambers, special requests to charge were discussed, and the rul- ing of the Court as to each request was noted thereon by the Court. Also at this conference, the matter of the form of the verdict was discussed and resolved. 11/14/62 Conference in Chambers following charge re re- quests for additional requests to charge. See Ap. F for verbatim report of the conference pro- ceedings. HEARING IN CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 13, 1962. 1* Mr. Kramer: May it please the Court, the defendant moves to dismiss this entire action because in this case jurisdiction of this court is based entirely upon the alleged violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. And the plaintiff has not asserted a substantial cause of action either in the pleadings or under the proof under this Taft-Hartley Act. And jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the alleged cause of action based upon plain violation of the * Numbers appearing in outer edge of text indicate page numbers of original stenographic transcript of testimony. Maes ns # 4 * 4 Re ee e Csew- BEM NPVOINOAD SSA RRR GS RC oe eae — 68a — Hearing in Chambers Tennessee common or statutory law, that it is based upon conspiracy, if existing, is based upon the theory of ancillary or pendant jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction does not and cannot exist in this case in as much as the substantial cause of action under the federal act is not here asserted either in the pleadings or in the proof. And this motion goes to the dismissal of the entire cause or case. The Court: Now that motion is based upon both the pleading and on the proof? Mr. Kramer: It is, your Honor. The Court: . . . the jurisdiction. Mr. Kramer: We heretofore had the motion on the 2 pleadings alone. And it is now based upon both. The Court: All right. 7 The Court: If not, it’s the opinion of the Court that the evidence does not establish that a violation— there’s no evidence upon which a jury might find that a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act existed in so far as George Ramsey was concerned. First, in that there is no evidence upon which the jury might find that the Union activity was directed toward Ramsey in violation of the Act. And second, there is no evidence of any legally established damages or injuries. The prospective loss of contracts or haulage agreements which never had in fact existed would be so speculative, so remote, as to not to establish any issue that the jury could pass on with regard to damages, it seems to me. So that the motion will be sustained in so far as the secondary boycott is claimed toward George Ramsey. All right. Mr. Kramer: Our next motion, your Honor, is to the same effect and directed to the claim of the secondary boycott against Tennessee Products and Chemical Com- pany. We do not think there is a sufficient affirmant in the — 69a — Hearing in Chambers pleadings and that the proof does not establish a basis upon which a jury could find that a secondary boycott was directed toward Tennessee Products and Chemical Company. 3 The Court: Well, with respect to the motion in so far as Tennessee Products is concerned, I believe the mo- tion should be sustained. It seems to me that—lI can’t re- call any evidence in the case which would form a 4 basis in the evidence for concluding that first, that the termination of the leases were as a result of the Union activity directed toward Tennessee Products. There is nothing in the record, it seems to me, other than just pure speculation as to why the lease may have been terminated in January, or a lease may have been terminated in January. At any rate, it’s my recollection of the testimony that at- tempted termination was not in fact accomplished, and when the termination was actually accomplished, it was accom- plished by Mr. Human, whose testimony was rather defi- nite and positive that it was terminated for reasons other than Union activity. It seems to me, too, that the problem of damages here is so speculative and so uncertain. One of these mines had been—the testimony appears to be clear —had been worked out. The only evidence of production or potential profits was a record that was introduced of an operation more than a year prior to that time. There’s no evidence in the record whatsoever of what the profit or loss experience was at a time reasonably close to the time when it’s contended that the lease or leases were ter- minated. I don’t see how the jury could find that, first, there was a termination by reason of unlawful union ac- tivity on basis of the evidence in the record, nor do I see how they could find any damages. Any conclusion by the jury on either of those issues, it seems to me, would have a — 70a — Hearing in Chambers to be speculation. I believe the motion should be sus. tained. All rigut. Mr. Kramer: We have a similar motion, your Honor, 5 as to Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company. I am trying to think that we not consider Tennessee Con- solidated and a similar motion as to Grundy made sepa- rately, but considered together at this time in the hope of saving a little time, and . ‘ The Court: Well, I really wonder if we would. Yes, I can tell you quite frankly what’s concerning me and then the plaintiff can respond. On the Tennessee Consoli- dated, I am unable to see where there is any proof of any damage in the record so far as Tennessee Consolidated. What is contended is that Tennessee Consolidated did not give him further leases or further work. Wherein is that an actionable damage—the failure to give a prospective lease or prospective employment in the future. I’m not aware of that being a legally actionable element of dam- age. Now, do you have any authority for a proposition? This was not a situation, so far as Tennessee Consolidated was concerned, and under the record in this case where an existing contract or an existing right was interfered with, but rather the testimony could only establish that a prospective right or a prospective lease of property, or prospective employment was interfered with. * * * * * * * 11 The Court: Well, anything further? Without at this time passing on the question as to whether there is evidence to go to the jury on the actions of the Union in so far as it may or may not have been directed toward Ten- nessee Consolidated, as the Court reads the cases, not only the cases that are referred to in the plaintiff’s brief with respect to similar actions, such as this, against United Mine Workers, but other cases, I am unable to see where Piet ——— —Tla — Hearing in Chambers there is any evidence in the record that would warrant submitting the case ou the issue of damages as to the defendant, Tennessee Consolidated. I believe the motion should be sustained as to Tennessee Consolidated. * * * * * 7 * 3 The Court: Except for the fact that we are, as you know, running a little bit on time this morning, I would want to give you every opportunity to debate the matter fully, because it’s very helpful to me for you all to state your position. This is not an easy case. It’s difficult. It’s difficult to keep everything in mind at one time. There are so many different elements to it. I believe, however, as to that motion, unless there is something further on it, that the motion as to Grundy should be overruled and the jury can be ready to pass upon the question—as to whether or not there was a secondary boycott, as to whether or not there was a conspiracy, as to whether or not there were damages. Mr. Kramer: Now, your Honor, I do want to make 4 another motion. The Court: All right. Mr. Kramer: We move to dismiss the portion of this suit that is based upon an alleged common law conspiracy arising under the state statute, because the facts nec- essary... The Court: The state statutes? Mr. Kramer: The state statutes—or state law. The state law. In other words, the conspiracy portion of the claim which was based not on secondary boycott but on common law. That is a separate cause of action. The factual situation is not identical with the factual situation that is involved in the secondary boycott, and we respect- fully insist that ancillary or pendant jurisdiction could not attach to a secondary boycott claim or a violation of ED Mei, SSP PETIT SGP EOE IE AF LIE AOL AEL NL I ASE OIE I TE OIL ONS LL ES Ih IED Rt — 72a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 the Taft-Hartley so as to give this court jurisdiction of this claim. It’s separate and independent, and ancillary or pendant jurisdiction principles should not carry that case into and part of the jurisdiction of the federal court. The Court: All right. Mr. Kramer: And furthermore, as another basis for that motion, the rule of law applicable with reference to agency and the degree of proof required to establish that agency has not been met. * * * * * * * 5 The Court: I believe that the motion should be over- ruled. PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2. National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950 as Amended Effective December 1, 1958. Protective Wage Clause. The United Mine Workers of America (which, as used in this Clause, includes all of its Districts, Local Unions, Officers or Agents) and the Operators signatory hereto affirm their intention to maintain the integrity of this contract in all of its parts. The objective of this contract is to provide the maximum possible continuity and sta- bility of employment under the conditions set forth herein. The parties hereto agree that bituminous coal mines shall be so operated as not to debase or lower the standards of wages, hours, safety requirements and other conditions of work, established by this contract. The parties recog- nizing their obligation each as to the other to exercise all possible efforts and means to attain these objectives further agree as follows: A. During the period of this Contract, the United Mine Workers of America will not enter into, be a UIST Hy SP aay * PERI Lee RA Dey. SPs NRT NNR TS eR DS ee 5: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 party to, nor will it permit any agreement or under- standing covering any wages, hours or other condi- tions of work applicable to employees covered by this Contract on any basis other than those specified in this Contract or any applicable District Contract. The United Mine Workers of America will diligently perform and enforce without discrimination or favor the conditions of this paragraph and all other terms and conditions of this Contract and will use and exer- cise its continuing best efforts to obtain full com- plianece therewith by each and all the parties signa- tory thereto. B. It is recognized that when signatory operators mine, prepare, or procure or acquire under subcon- tract arrangements, bituminous coal mined under terms and conditions less favorable than those pro- vided for in this contract, they deprive employees of employment opportunities, employment conditions and other benefits which these employees are entitled to have safeguarded, stabilized and protected. Ac- cordingly, the Operators agree that all bituminous coal mined, produced, or prepared by them, or any of them, or procutred or acquired by them or any of them under a sulbcontract arrangement, shall be or shall have been mained or produced under terms and conditions which are as favorable to the employees as those provided for in this Contract. ‘‘Procured or acquired under a subcontract arrange. ment’’ means any contract, lease, license, agreement, arrangement or understanding pursuant to which the signatory operator acquires coal, either as principal or agent, directly or indirectly from a producer other than such signatory for delivery to a person other than such signatory. EE OGRA REMI RGR LS ALLE ILL IE IL ET IONE TS TM IL RS NE TR — 74a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 The obligation assumed hereunder shall not affect any agreement in effect as of the date of execution of this contract: Provided, however, that any operator signatory hereto who is a party to any agreement inconsistent with the obligations assumed hereunder shall not maintain such inconsistent agreement in ef- fect beyond the first date at which such agreement may be terminated by him in accordance with its terms. . The Operators signatory to this agreement shall so conduct their own operations (whether operated di- rectly or indirectly, or through subsidiaries or af- filiates) so as to fully comply with their obligations under this Clause. The obligation of each Operator signatory hereto, which is several and not joint, to fully perform all the conditions in this paragraph B contained, shall be a direct and continuing obligation of said Operator during the life of this Agreement. As a part of the consideration for this Agreement, the Operators signatory hereto agree that this Clause covers the operation of all the coal lands, coal pro- ducing or coal preparation facilities owned or held under lease by them, or any of them, or by any sub- sidiary or affiliate at the date of this Agreement, or acquired during its terms which may hereafter (dur- ing the term of this Agreement) be put into produc- tion or use. The said Operators agree that they will not lease, license, or contract out any coal lands, coal producing or coal preparation facilities as a subter- fuge for the purpose of avoiding the application of this Clause. Be nA ee ee ae OT — joa — PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT — 76a — ee PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 15. 8. Treasury D. Int J Revenue Service ee ae PROFIT ‘COR LOSS) FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 1958 Ter Computation of Self-Employment Tux, s00 Page 3) Attach this schedule to your =o Return, Form 1040 — Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Etc. Must File On Form | For Calendar Year 1956, or other beginning , 1996, and ending ry Name dd on £ 7 oy i i MIN i os aadcccucddanevecsevesuedncsvnaee 3.260/89.3[ @. Inventory at ond of year 6... 6... c eee cece cece eee ereeeeeseeeseeeres 9. Cost of goods sold (line 7 ‘ess line 8) 10. Gross profit (line 1 less line 9)... 6... cece cece cece eee nee e ener eneeereneeeneeeeteres OTHER BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS — 11. Solaries and wages not included on line 4 (do not include any paid to yourself). ./$..... 12. Rent on business property... 2... 6 0 cece eee e eter teense erect es [eeeemeesceseeeenenenenes 13. Interest on business indebtedness... 6.6 cece eee eee eeeeeeeee M4. Taxes on busi and busi EE, ca cddcdweddsd evens qoutes svenksecssemvens TYRTY 18. Losses of business property (attach staterment) ........ «2... eee eee eens 16. Bad debts arising from sales or services... 0.66.66 e eee eet eens fenewenn : = 17. Depreciation and obsolescence (explain in Schedule C-l)................--. mets tia Sh, Mercier Geeta Ws DATE... 5. occ occneceecneceersecconeseeeese LA, LEE ES 19. Depletion of mines, oil and gas wells, timber, etc. (attach schedule)............ 21. Other business expenses (enplain in Schedule C-8)...........0..ccseceeeeee | GORY 3 Vat 22. I oo iy an enkiv day xensensavenvcdanenesieoins 3 Ys 23. Net profit (or loes) (line 10 lees line 22). Also enter on line 24, Sp sebiclaeabecnanie: and on line 8, ' page |, Form 1040..........,.........-. ee en es ad as a ; ’ 8 17,0#4. ILE IE EE AIEEE LITER ORE I MERITS ES ———— — 77a — PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 16. exons | PROFIT (OR LOSS) FROM BUSINESS OR AmORESSON’| 195 1957 ot Self-Employment Tax, Income on. Return, —— 1040 — Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Etc. Must File On Form 1065 ra _, » 1957, and ending 4 7 Lddress 92-Gg"” eo FT, are LX rami om ——eE ” — : * lswyer etc. iF \pal product or service |p. Susiness -E F a oe SE a ooo bates @ separa Ss ies ebatae teadanioein 1 of Schedule C must be completed for each b |, Total receipts $.... ceveeereessee-+---, hous ottomeances, rebates, and returns $... rs Ra stanreicivorsnets \s_....YOU 7G 747. , scan oh beginemng ot Leccarecesuecs «seseuse : et ig re "F3I°GGl ~~ bap enn Gene einen bie | | | tainan for personal we $.. panies bf FO6OL. | Cost of labor (do not include eilne guth e youn... | GFE er teackatissices As |e, 700. Other costs (explain in Schedule C-2) | hort t (Total of Vinge 2 through 6.62... ...e ee eceeeecceeee seen: es eet One? tan ten Pee teessa e¥ve Sas Guiemipoa pone , } -: GV IYVNY Geese profit (line 1 lees line 9)... Rehteatieeewenae a tae OTHER sUsurEss pEDUCTIONS ee re Oe. ngetn Geapadn ts Guhedulle O-8) 0... 6... eee eee. (ace fo aa — AFIT. Toe ine 1 HOG Too a Ba 2,6 FFE 10 less line 22). Enter here: on line 24, page 3, and.on line 8, page I, Form 1040._|s 2432 4/ Se 52 SR SARS NIE EEG FILE LEE OPULENCE RRS, — 78a — PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 17. U. 8. Tr a lies a ee, (rorm 1048), PROFIT T (OR L0SS) FRO FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 1958 a= Security Self-Employment Tax on Page 3) Attach ths schedule to your a — —— Form 1040 — Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Etc., Must File On Form iii For Calendar Year 188, or other taxable year “a - Narre as shown cn page | Form 1040 . It you. had mere ‘han one business, or husband and wife had separaie nena 4 a ponneion page 1 for each business. A. Principal business activity: . z 2 “4 A ie ites cca ire ee (Number and street or rural if D. Did you file an aa! Quarterly Tax Return, Form 941." for any quarter of 19587 UOT T No. £. Employer's Identiticasoun iat! Number, if any oki li Ge . FP. Isthis within the legal boundaries of a municipality? C) Yee (haw ‘prento @. Did you own ‘his business on December 31, 1958? feos (No. 98. How many months in 1958 did you own this buanes? ./ ‘ me 1. Total receipts $... scnnengliatwn ., leas allowances, rebates, antommmna®. saan eens te IG 9d 18K 2. inventory at beqinaing of SL anes Cisne eacseknees y re sci icaataaltbantaleden iwatie 3. Mer-handise purchased ohne ‘is. 99.936,1¥ .. . lees any items withdrawn | from business for personal use $.. Veivtenlion Rew eae ers per en eer. 9 GY 426.97 | 4. Cos: of labor (4+ not include salary —_ to icant. a ans nn Oner. 5. Motenal and supplies SOE ree Ce erm rir er Tey Ly 2276.87. a tile alana RRA; ...-onr ees «dss sonerennenses | Weececeeee3.Ly..2 OF OTHER BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS ~ oe, Siteenes ead een attache en tan 6 ndiats any dat GUND « -- Piceennrercctresnorene~ 12. Rent on business property... 6... c cece cee cece e ence n ere n ence cence: [eensaneneenneeaameneenanecaess 13. Interest on tndlobtednees. .. 6... 55 o Ko revcccccccces Pannreds ee. oe eoteiaiaiaiitiaieds | 44. Tones on by ciness and business property...........s.cccccecccssveesece sof ccvcsned Gb0b 18. Losses of business property (attach statement) .............6 66. cece eens 16. Bad debts arising from sales or services... 0.0... eee eee ee eeenenenreee — S. Deprectoten Geanintn Oe Gtabialin OM... --2eccececceceereseeefeors EEE $8. Bepairs (explain in Gahedule C-B) 2.2... eee ee cece neces seemneneesetii 23... 1%. Depletion of mines, ot] and gas wells, timber, etc. (attach schedule) wee 28. Amortzation (attach statement)... 6... eee nent oe 21. Other business expenses (explain in Schedule C-2) él ATT 22. Total of lines 11 through 21. 23,_ Net proBt (or loss) (line 10 less line 22). Enter hare; on line 24. page 3.andon|ine 8, pagel, Form 1040.8 3, 476 | (BOM GOALS EES SRO ER AE OTH a OF jp me rer setae mss Ws or — 79a — PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 18. U. & Treasury Depart 1 joes | PROFIT (OR LOSS) FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION | 1959 ifesme 1000) (Compute Social Security Self-Employment Tax on Page 3) your Income Taz Return, Form 1040 — Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Etc., Must File On Form 1088 Q 2 at —_ _ AP) #?. —_-o—:— ; SS load Nome, we pee i sated name aie leted Mh Se f Number 6% OF/ +198 : caer ee. 0 ed Otumber and street or rural route) a caainiahienclacntuneileay lees allowances, rebates, rE " is FoRRETEE. oo i eee eCeee ee ee eee eee Peer ee Cee ee ee eee eee eee ee 1. bez. OF PoePee PERO OSC OCC OSE eee e eee Cee eee, eee Peer eee eee eee eee e eC Cee Cee eee eee eee CORO O OREO OOOO EET HEHEHE HEHE HEHEHE EEE ie v5o 4760-7 TOP eee e COUR C OSC CS CS See eee eee OUP eeEREO OSES CS CSCC eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee BR sitesionosoree caves feshtolaeeeenn LE PB-26 eee e reer eee ee ee eee eee eee eee ee —- WAY TFL AEE A RTT NEE RELI IIR L151, 43! \64 ) Cine 10 less line 22). Enter here: on line 24, page 3: and on line @, page 1, Form 1040. .|8 P is —,, Se IA SEE OY IE TUNIS NLS MUTANS ALERTS EOS REIN TS EI ANSE RE ITD — 80a — PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 19. — PROFIT (OR LOSS) FROM BUSINESS Off PROFESSION ipts $. Iw TC = ee. 4 2 ain abecry! 1.295.707 $2 a | from business for personal use $0000 ' ghee hed 4. Cost of labor (do not include salary paidt youl)... tt eatle | 8. Materia! ond supplies Total of lines 2 through 6 8. Inventory at end of year POU HEOCHL ESSEC EVOVSTSCSEC SECC SCHL CODE CC CEES VEEP COSHH OTUSREHESCOSCOECES OOO ODES SC OCS CEC EEOC TS 11. Salaries and wages not included on line 4 (exclude any paid to yourself) 12. Rent on business property .............. CPO TORO CFO OCCT ESE SEO eee eee eesee 18. Repairs (explain in Schedule C-@)..............! 18. Depletion of mines, oi! and gas wells, timber, etc. aunesinmaenes 38. Amortization (attech statement) COCCCCOC Ceo OHer EO Keer esresoversereseCeee mat 2. Total of lines 11 through 21 23. Net pro®t (or loss) (line 10 lees line 22). Enter here: on line 24, poge 3: and on line 6, page |. Form 1040 . mae fr 4S 377 4 CLS OSI es Re Kes yy PEW) LEIS ———— —8la— - PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 20. wwe | PROFIT (OR LOSS) FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ut ty Dare Se ee ee ee 196 ——— | his Schedule to your Income Tex Return, Fesm 106 — Partnesships, Joint Ventures, Dts., Must File On Form 1088 148 OS3 99 OE --+- -=++, less allowances, retates, and returns S$ _ 4 $ scare began of year (2 dilarent then last your's closing taventary Series: ees jee toch explanation) ................... - Seah huwexvdern@desane pe aaeen Ws j #& ee | tad ehondise purchased s £h63 ary iene witdra wn ‘9 pap usin for porecmal wae Sac sees —h str! 1 wer (do tet Unisde salary paid to yourself)... ................ LAE EY.. SO rc cresexdeveceterscevecevtosoecsscceoes | aa een ORDO ...cccesscssesecvvevsvesveseees * aia t I | ¥h,? o onscreen te ee ceewereereeeereresceceseesserees er ‘ of goods wold (ine 7 les lime G ..... 6 ccc wecereeeereceeeewee eee n eee e eee en eee eee ee eens caput (ebirent tno © frum tae 1) laa alata nssecccicaanphihi me oY) 4 cm and wages ot imobuded om line 4 (acbude amy patd t yourset) ME on od) DELLE LEE EEE put on business incebtedheees. ... 2... . 6. sec c cee enees cvesccesccocess mn business and business property...........+ Salamaniied datsiateeiee 1059.9 Whe r74e gestation (explain in Schedule C-1) .. 2.0.6 c cc ceeecceeceeeeeeueeeees min (explain tn Schadhully O-2) oo... eee c cece esc ceueeeeenees LLSte.47 wrteation (altach statement)... 6.6.6. cece cece e eee eceweeeneeeeeues i preltt (or leas) (subtract line 25 from line 10). Enter here: on line |. Schedule C-~% and on line 6, mpi form 1000. PESTLE IE LIE NIT LI RIIGN. SLITS ST Sy Abi /3 17, G63 \9 i. —-t OTD RT PEGE INGE LG DINE Fi SN tag Epa PONTO IME OLS tonite eT | eit éy — 82a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 30. Stanlee Hampton Paul Callis Everett Roberts Houston Beaumont President Vice-President Vice-President Secretary Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company (Monogram) 607 Commerce Union Building Nashville 3, Tennessee January 12th, 1960. United Mine Workers of America Washington, D. C. Re: National Coal Wage Agreement of 1950 as amended effective December 1, 1958. Gentlemen: Pursuant to action taken by the Board of Directors of our company and in accordance with the paragraph provid- ing for termination of the December 1, 1958 amendment to the collective bargaining contract by and between the United Mine Workers of America and the Tennessee Con- solidated Coal Company, you are hereby notified that the said Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company elects to ter minate said contract effective March 15, 1960. Yours very truly, TENNESSEE CONSOLIDATED COAL, CO., By STANLEE HAMPTON, President. (C: United Mine Workers of America District No. 19 Middlesboro, Kentucky Palmer Local Palmer, Tennessee — — 83a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 31 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 31. January 14, 1960 Mr. James Ridings, President District 19, UMWA Box 116 Middlesboro, Kentucky Re: Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co. Tracy City, Tennessee. Dear Sir and Brother: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a self-explanatory com- munication dated January 12, 1960, from Stanlee Hampton, President, Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, which is signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agree- ment of 1950 as Amended, effective December 1, 1958, by membership in the Southern Tennessee Coal Producers’ Association. Would you please advise this office with respect to the contractual status of the Tennessee Consolidated Coal Com- pany subsequent to March 15, 1960. Sincerely yours, W. A. BOYLE, Assistant to the President. B/d/t Enclosure “tho pss Fe sco pair. waver Si ae } PELE TOS RALLIES AE LM FAG LEC IEEE AE LLENS LEE IONE USACE — &4a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 34 PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 34. Paul Gibbs. Contract to Haul Coal From Grundy Mining Company for Redstone Arsenal. Estimated Income— 35,000 Tons at $.78 a Ton (at rate of 10,000 tons a week, would require 3% weeks to deliver)..................... $27,300.00 Estimated Expense— Labor (3142 weeks X $1,609.60 a week)............ $5,633.60 Gasoline (3% weeks X $1,120.00 a week).......... 3,920.00 Oil and Grease (3% weeks X $48.00 a week)...... 168.00 Tires and Tubes (3% weeks X $153.84 a week).... 538.44 Truck Repairs (3% weeks X $222.87)............. 780.05 Workmen’s Compensation Insurance ($2.00 per SEGRE FPO ee BONOE TS csi kance aden sees cues 112.67 Truck Insurance (3% weeks X $37.65 a week).... 131.78 Payroll Taxes (6%% X $5,633.60)................ 345.06 Truck Tags (3% weeks X $41.04 a week)......... 143.64 Telephone (3% weeks X $5.77 a week)........... 20.20 Depreciation (3% weeks X $422.08 a week)....... 1,477.28 I titres cea w sa Vise Kees NONee eeeK es 13,270.72 Estimated Net Profit on Contract................... ccc ee eee $14,029.28 — 85a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 38. Whitwell, Tennessee, September 7, 1961. Mr. Paul Gibbs, Tracy City, Tennessee. Dear Mr. Gibbs: It has just come to my attention that a mine (number 2-074) that was formerly leased by you is presently being worked in your name. In checking through our files I note that a lease cancellation letter for this mine was sent to you on January 5th of this year. This is to advise you that since no lease is in existence covering this mine all work in and around 2-074 should be stopped immediately. Please contact me at our Reel’s Cove office if there are any questions concerning this matter. Yours truly, TENNESSEE PRODUCT'S & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, HOWARD C. HUMAN, Assistant to Vice President—Mining. HCH/wme — &a — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 39 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 39. Whitwell, Tennessee, September 7, 1961. Mr. Paul Gibbs, Tracy City, Tennessee. Dear Mr. Gibbs: As you know we have been having considerable prob- lems with the quality of our outside coal that is being put in on the Marquette Cement Plant contract. After going over our latest analysis covering this coal it appears that the hoped for improvements have not been forth coming and that quality problems will continue to problem with this coal. In order to try to improve this situation we are going to eliminate the delivering of purchased coal from mines or companies that are operating outside of the Tepco lease holdings. Effective Monday, September 18th, all coal de- livered on the Marquette contract must come from mines that are operating on the Tepco lease hold. This should give you ample time to make the necessary arrangements to purchase coal from the small mines on our property in an amount equal to that which you pres- ently- purchase from various outside sources. Please contact me at our Reel’s Cove office if you have any questions on this matter. Yours truly, TENNESSEE PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, HOWARD C. HUMAN, Assistant to Vice President—Mining. HCH/wme - 4 ae a ~ DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT 40. — &ia — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40 Whitwell, Tennessee, September 26, 1961. Mr. Paul Gibbs, Tracy City, Tennessee. Dear Mr. Gibbs: During the past several weeks there has been consider- able discussion concerning the ash analysis of the outside coal being delivered on the Tepco coal contract at the Cowan Cement Plant. On September 7, 1961, you were notified verbally and by letter from this office that effective September 18th all de- liveries made on this contract must be of coal mined from the Tepco lease holdings. According to our recorded scale weight tickets this was not carried out during the week ending September 22, 1961. As a result this is official noti- fication that no further deliveries of coal from any source will be accepted on the Cowan Cement Contract. This will confirm our phone conversation of last evening. Should you have any further question on this matter, please contact me at the Whitwell office. Yours truly, HOWARD C. HUMAN, Assistant to Vice President, Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation. HCH/wme ec: Mr. R. E. Merryman Mr. H. I. Allen Mr. W. A. Moody — 88a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs In the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division. PAUL GIBBS 7 vs. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA. . No. Civil 3771. 4 Transcript of proceedings and evidence introduced in the trial of the case, beginning 7th day of November, 1962, before the Honorable Frank W. Wilson, U. S. Dis. trict Judge, and a jury. Appearances: Joe Van Derveer, Esq., and Wm. Ables, Esq., attor- neys for the plaintiff. R. R. Kramer, Esq., E. H. Rayson, Esq., and Willard P. Owens, Esq., attorneys for defendant. * * * * * * * Mr. Rayson: Ladies and gentlemen, I will say this: that we represent the International Union of the United Mine Workers, a defendant in this case. * * * * * * * 2 MR. PAUL GIBBS, having first been duly sworn, testifies as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. Will you state your name please? A. Paul Gibbs. — 89a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. Where do you live, Mr. Gibbs? A. Tracy City, Tenn. Q. Now, how long have you been engaged in the coal, or coal mining or coal hauling business? A. 32 years. Q. Practically you’re entire—— 3 A. Since I was 15 years old. 4 Q. Now, let’s get back prior to the events that hap- pened in that particular area. For a number of years, have you been operating mines over in that area? A. Well, since July of 1953 the last time. Q. Who owned the land upon which these mines were located ? A. Tennessee Products and Chemical Corporation. Q. What arrangement existed between you and Ten- nessee Products whereby you were mining these lands? A. I had leased the Tennessee Products’ mine and coal and delivered it to them, and they sold it themselves. Q. Generally, where were those mines located? A. Well, I, at one time, had about 5 mines in that area. Q. What—— A. I had three, what we called ‘‘employed haulers’’ in the pocket. Q. When you say ‘‘the pocket’’ that’s the area that you-— \. That’s about a mile further on down this blacktop road from where I pointed out ‘‘Dogwood Flat’’. Q. Now, to lay the background on this general area, where over in that area are these good coal mining lands? A. Well, the best thing that’s left in that area now that hasn’t been worked out is in the Gray’s Creek area. — 90a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. Uh-huh, and you had some mines with Tennessee 5 Products in and around that area. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. On adjoining property with the high. way going into the pocket, there’s a yellow painted line there, Tennessee Consolidated owns on the right, Ten. nessee Products on the left, and during the present time, I was operating on Products on the left hand side of the road. * * * a * * * Mr. Van Derveer: O. K. I think, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we might point that out a little more carefully at this time, because I know it was confusing to the court in discussing the proceedings and it may be to the jury. As you will see from time to time in the trial of thiy case, there will be a reference to Tennessee Consolidated and there will be a reference to Tennessee Products. Now, these are two separate and distinct companies or corpo- rations, so keep that in mind when they talk about Ten- nessee Consolidated or when they talk about Tennessee Products. Q. Now, Mr. Gibbs, first on Tennessee Products, did Tennessee Products operate some mines of their own, or did they get their entire production by leasing out 6 the land to fellows like yourself? _ A. They had one mine that they operate themselves and the rest was lessee mines. Q. All right, now, let’s talk about Consolidated. Did Consolidated operate their own mines, or did they operate through lessees? A. Same way, just like Tennessee Products. Q. Now, but those two companies are competitors, are they? A. That’s right. Q. And they are distinct companies, are they? A. That’s right. STRSTR NEG EE LORIE LOT EY A et — 9a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. Separate companies. Well, let’s lead up toward the 15th and 16th of August of 1960. Now, sometime prior to that or immediately before that, did you have any rolling stock or equipment? A. Yeah. Q. Just tell the court and jury, just, let’s say there on the 10th, 12th, and 13th of August, 1960, what trucks and equipment did you have? A. I had eight dump trucks at that time. Q. Now, when you say dump trucks, explain to the jury. Some of them probably understand, sae I am sure that I don’t? A. They’re regular coal trucks with coal bodies and hoists on them. We call them dump trucks. 7 Q. Now, what size trucks were they? A. Well, ordinarily they’re listed as two and one- half tons, but we haul about 20 or 22 tons on them. Q. How many wheels do they have on them? A. Ten. Q. At that time, and we are still referring to that period of time immediately before the 15th of August, 1960, how many employees did you have in your mines and in your trucks? A. Well, during that time, around the 15th and 16th of August, 1960, I had eight truck drivers. * * * * * * aod A. And I couldn’t say positive how many men I had employed in the mines at that time, but I’d say somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 or 20. Q. Now, at that time, how many mines were you run- ning or operating? A. Two. Q. Uh-huh. And those two were on the lands leased from The Tennessee Products Chemical Company, is that correct ? — 92a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, where were you hauling the coa] that was being used, or hauled in these eight trucks? A. Well, I was only using about 2 of the trucks jpn 8 my own operation, and I was hauling coal to Bennett Lake or down into Woodville Ramp, where. ever The Tennessee Products and Chemical Corporation advised me to take the coal. * * * * * * * Q. And the remainder of your trucks, the other six, were being used for what now? A. Hauling coal from Pikeville Coal Company on a strip-logger job under Tennessee Products lease. * * * * * * * Q. Uh-huh, then if I understand you correctly, two of your trucks were in your own mines and you were hauling on the other six, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, on or about the 10th, 11th, or 12th, or some- where in that area, state whether or not you were con- tacted by anyone with Tennessee Consolidated Coal Com- pany or The Grundy Mining Company, in regard to doing anything for them? ~ A. On Friday afternoon, August 12th, 1960, Mr. 9 Judson Harwood was up from Nashville. Q. Just a moment now. Who is Mr. Judson Har- wood? A. He is an attorney over there, and he was president of the Grundy Mining Company at that time. * * * * * * * The Court: Yes, it’s agreed and stipulated, ladies and gentlemen, between the parties, that Grundy Mining Com- — 98a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs pany was a wholly owned subsidiary of Tennessee Con- solidated Coal Company. Q. Now prior to the time that Mr. Judson Harwood, the Nashville Attorney, contacted you, had you ever heard of The Grundy Mining Company? A. No, sir. I had not. Q. So far as you know, it was a new company, a new concern? A. Yes, sir. Q. At that time, did you know Mr. Judson Harwood? A. No, sir, I never even heard of him. Q. How were you contacted by him? A. He called me on the phone at home. Q. Now, what was the purpose of his calling you? 10 +Q. All right, sir. And what transpired there, be- tween you and these three men? A. They drove down, got out of the pick-up, and went to looking around there a few minutes, and one of them said to me, he said we—— et * * 7 7 * + * But as a result of that conversation, what did you do? A. I just got in my pick-up and left. Q. And where did you go? A. When I started out of there, I met two of the Grundy Mining Company employees—— — 10la — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. All right, sir. A. And Johnny Cain. Q. And Johnny Cain? A. Yes, sir, I found out it was Johnny Cain after I met him up there. I didn’t know him before. Q. Who was Johnny Cain? A. He was the representative of the Southern Labor Union. Q. Of the Southern Labor Union. All right, did you 93 just pass them, there on Gray’s Creek Road? A. No, sir, we stopped. Q. All right. Well, without going into what was said, did you then go on up to the junction of the Pocket Road? A. Yes, sir. Q. In your own words, briefly, but completely, tell the jury what happened when you arrived there. A. Well, when I got back up on the Pocket Road, I’d already found out where these other boys was at, that were trying to find their way in there, and I drove around to where they were, while the other employees—— Q. Did you discuss the situation with them, then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you go then? A. To the best of my knowledge, after I left these boys, I went over on Daws Mountain where my trucks were hauling coal. Q. And attended to your own business the remainder of the day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, was any work at all performed there, at the new mines—— A. No. Q. On the 15th of August? A. No, sir. — . e y 3 — creeper pace era ani renuenen LT SE Biwis: Dela sets S. z Pay in Bt ee yest ~ et 2 - ha * awe . SU Gee at ee RRR es BEELER OS DELS. RRS Ae Ey — 102a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. Did you then return to the same scene the fo. 24 lowing morning, the 16th? A. Yes, sir. Q. In your own words, tell us what happened then? A. Well, that afternoon, on Monday, August 15th, one of my truck drivers notified me at my home that he was broken down over in the Pocket. I was hauling some coal from my mine over to the coal screens, at that time, and he wanted to know if I could take him out the next morning, early, and take a axle along to go in the truck, and I told him I could. Well, about five or five-fifteen the next morning, I left with the truck driver, going to the pocket area, where my truck was broken down, and on the way in, I had to pass right by this Dogwood Flat. Q. The junction of the Pocket and the Gray’s Creek Road? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right? A. I noticed a pick-up truck following me in there and I identified it later as Bobby Banks. Q. And who was Bobby Banks? A. He was a committeeman of the mine of the Local 5881. Q. 5881, being the Palmer Local, wasn’t it? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right, sir, now he was the mine committeeman. Now first, what is a mine committeeman? A. Well, there’s three of them, and any grievance comes up in the mines, this committee is supposed to settle they. 25 Q, And Bobby Banks was one of these committee- men? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Now, what transpired right there, then? A. Well, I seen this truck following me, but I went on RAS ee eee tE A E geR ee etn Te 4: SAPP TEES RC LS ARNT RE eee — 103a -— Testimony of Paul Gibbs in the Pocket area and took this truck driver in there where the truck had broken down. Q. All right, sir. Now, you didn’t go down the Gray’s Creek Road? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Then you went on down to the Pocket area, which is a different area? A. I went in time to take him over there, so I could get back to Gray’s Creek area before work time. Q. All right? A. But, when I got back up there, I met a mob of about a handred or a hundred and twenty-five men. Q. Now, when you got back where? A. The Gray’s Creek Road in Dogwood Flats. Q. The only entrance into the new mine? A. That’s right. Q. Then, when you arrived there, it was approximately what time? A. I’d say around six-thirty. Q. And the mob was how many? A. Approximately, a hundred or a hundred and twenty- five armed men. 26 ©. All right, now, you say armed men. Mr. Gibbs, did you actually see arms, and if so, what did you see? A. Well, I’d say 50 per cent of the men had shot-guns and rifles. Q. Now, what did you do when you arrived there? I want you to tell—— A. About eight of them ran out in the road in front of me with guns up to their shoulders, and stopped me. Q. All right, now, just tell the jury, in your own words, exactly what happened. Don’t leave out anything, but—— A. Well, when they stopped me, Estell Woodley had a double barrel shotgun and—— — 104a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. Just a moment now. Who is Estell Woodley? A. He was an employee of The Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, at that time. Q. All right, sir? A. He put the shotgun in his right hand after I stopped and took his left hand and opened my pick-up truck door, and got me by the arm, and tried to pull me out, and these other fellers was standing there with their guns up to their shoulder on me while he was trying to pull me out of the truck, and I knew the guy. 27 Q. Did you get out of your truck, or were you pulled out of your truck? A. I got out. Q. What transpired when you got out of your truck? A. Well, this whole mob of men, they just gathered around me there, and began telling me what. they were going to do to me. * s * * * * * 28 Q. You did get out of your truck? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. How long did you remain there at that scene? A. Approximately 2 hours. Q. What were you doing this period of time that you were there those two hours? A. Well, I was trying to watch to see who was going to hit or shoot me first. Q. All right, sir. Did you recognize—or let me rephrase it and put—Tell us what people you recognized that were in these locals there in this group? A. Well, first was the President of the Palmer Local of the 5881, Walter Trum. Q. The Palmer Local, we’re back on 5881? — 105a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs A. Yes, sir. Q. And the President of that Local was who? A. Walden Schrum. Q. Now, without regard to what he said to you, did 99 you actually see him there? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Who else did you see there? A. Well, this Bobby Banks, he was a committeeman. Q. On 5881? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Without going into what was said there, who else did you see there? A. Alder Brewer. Q. Now, who is Mr. Alder Brewer? A. Well, I couldn’t say positive, but I think he was Secretary and Treasurer of the Local at that time. Q. Of 5881, also? A. Yes, sir. Q. Again, the Palmer Local, wasn’t it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, what others did you recognize there? A. T. E. Partain. * * * * * * * Q. What position did he hold with the Union? 30 319 Q. You said you had a conversation with somebody connected with the United Mine Workers, didn’t you? A. When? Q. Well, just after the trouble in August, 1960? A. While they was having that trouble over there? Q. Yes, sir. Who did you have a conversation with? A. George Gilbert. He stopped at the house. 321 Q. Did you know George Gilbert was coming there ahead of time? A. No, sir, he just stopped by. Q. Just stopped by to visit with you, and by himself? A. Most of the time. Q. Well, I’m talking about the time of this conversation? A. Oh, yes, sir. Q. By himself that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did the subject of Paul Gibbs come up? A. I just asked him what the trouble was, and that is when he told what the trouble was. That’s all I ever said. Q. Before this conversation, had you seen him at the picket line? A. That was after that I seen him. @. You mean after this conversation, at a later date, you saw him up there? A. Yes, sir. — 222a — Testimony of Howard Higgins Q. You say he brought some food there? A. Yeah, he was going into the Pocket for something and he raised his trunk and he had some food, and he went on. 324 HOWARD HIGGINS, after being duly sworn, the witness testified as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. Will you state your name, please, sir? A. Howard Higgins. Q. Who do you work for now, Mr. Higgins? A. Grundy Mining Company. Q. How long have you been with the Grundy Mining Company? A. Something like three months, I guess. Q. What is your job over there? A. Mine foreman. Q. How long have you been in the mine business? A. Do you mean as an operator, or mine foreman, or what? Q. How long have you been in the whole kitten ka- boodle; working in the mines, and ail? A. I went into the mines in 1930. Q. And been there ever since? A. Yes, sir. Q. Both as a miner and as an operator? A. That’s right. 325 Q. Have you ever been a member of the United Mine Workers of America? A. Up until 1960. September. — 223a — Testimony of Howard Higgins Q. How many of these foremen do you have there with Grundy? A. I ain’t for certain, but I believe there’s about seven. Q. Seven. Now, who hired all of you? A. Mr. Paul Callis. Q. At the time that all of you were being hired by Mr. Callis, there, vs the name of Mr. Paul Gibbs discussed? A. Yes. It yras. 396 Q. Anyway, Mr. Gibbs was not hired, was he? A. No, sir. Q. And, of course, Mr. Gibbs is not working there today. Now, Mr. Higgins, let’s get back to the events of Au- gust the 15th and 16th, 1960. Were you over in the area there, of the Pocket Road and the Gray’s Creek Road? A. No, sir. On that date I was in Middlesboro. 327 Q. Did you go over to that area, and see what it was? A. No, sir. I didn’t. I wasn’t in Gray’s Creek. I went over to my other mines in the Pocket. It was in the same area, but not down in Gray’s Creek. Q. Did you see this group that was there? A. Yes, sir. The road was full of picketers; of what I’d call picketers. Q. Did you see any firearms? A. No, sir. I didn’t. I never stopped. Q. You just went on by? A. That’s right. Q. On down into the Pocket, I believe? A. Into the Pocket. Yes, sir. — -') oa Testimony of Howard Higgins 328 Cross-Examination, By Mr. Rayson: Q. How long had you been an operator of the coal mine, over there in the Pocket, before you took a job as foreman for Grundy Mining Company? A. I went to work for the Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company as an operator in 1946, Q. You ran your own mine? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you ran it how long, Mr. Higgins? A. Up until some time in August. I don’t remember what date this year. 329 Q. Some time into August, this year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have one of these mines that had ten or fifteen employees in it? A. Off and on, anywhere from eight to fifteen, maybe twenty sometimes. Q. And, yours was one of the Pocket Mines of Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, that you had reached by going past this intersection—— A. That’s right. Q. At Gray’s Creek? A. Yes. Q. How many of those mines were there? ~~ A. You mean in the pocket? Q. Yes, sir, of Tennessee Consolidated? A. Well, I wouldn’t know. There’s about thirteen or fourteen of them. 330 Q. In any event, you’re now working as the fore- man in one of these mines? A. Yes, sir. Q. Twenty-five dollar a day man, now. Is that your salary? —_— Testimony of Paul B. Callis A. That’s right. Q. You don’t do any hauling for those mines, do you, Mr. Higgins? A. You mean trucking? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Do you truck from your own mine? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you own your own truck? A. My son-in-law is doing the trucking. No, I don’t own it. He does. Q. You mean it’s your son-in-law that does the trucking? A. That’s right. Q. Does he own one truck? A. Just one. Q. You were in Middlesboro, Tennessee, or Murfreesboro, or where were you? A. Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 332 PAUL B. CALLIS, after being duly sworn, the witness testified as follows: 333 Direct Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. I believe, sir, that you are Mr. Paul B. Callis, are you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Spelled C-a-l-l-i-s, is that right? A. Yes, sir, that’s right. Q. By whom are you employed at the present time? A. Grundy Mining Company. Q. In what capacity? — 226a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis A. President. _Q. What position, if any, do you hold at the present time with Tennessee Consolidated Coal? A. President. Q. Who are the officers, now, of the Tennessee Consoli- dated Coal Company? A. Myself, Houston Beaumont, William B. Allison. Mr. Beaumont is Vice-President and Secretary, and Mr. Alli- son is Treasurer... Q. And who of the... A. Mr. Stanley Hampton is Chairman of the Board, without official capacity, and Mr. Everett B. Roberts is Chairman of the Executive Commmtiten, without executive power. Q. Who, sir, are the present officers of the Grundy Min- ing Company? : A. The same officers we for Tennessee Con- solidated. 334 Q. Now, let’s jump back te the 15th and 16th of August, 1960. Who were the officers at that time of the Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, and who were the officers of the Grundy Mining Company? A. Mr. Stanley Hampton was President of Tennessee Consolidated; first, there was no Chairman of the Board of Tennessee Consolidated at that time. Mr. Stanley Hampton was President, Mr. Everett Roberts was Vice- President of Operations, Mr. Callis, myself, was Vice-Pres- ident of Sales, Mr. Houston Beaumont was Secretary, and I believe I was serving at that time as Treasurer, due to the death of Mr. Byron Roberts. The officers of Grundy at that time were Mr. Harwood, an attorney from Nash- ville, serving in the capacity of President. There were no other official officers appointed at that time. — 227a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. No. What I’m talking about is, are your duties primarily with sales or production of coal, or what? What . do you do, primarily, with the company? 335 A. Today, production. Q. Production. How about back in 1960 on the 15th and... A. Sales. I was Vice-President in charge of sales. Q. At that time? A. Yes, sir. * * * * * * * Q. Now, back to the fifteenth of March and up to all times since then, has the Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company and/or Grundy Mining Company operated with- out any sort of a contract with the United Mine Workers of America? 336 4A. Yes, sir. Q. And is that the way those businesses are being operated today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, following the exchanges of correspondence that you hold, state whether or not you, along with any other officers of either of these companies met with any of the officials of the United Mine Workers in regard to the re- negotiations of a contract? A. Speaking now for Tennessee Consolidated? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did those meetings take place, who was there, and the best you can, the dates? A. Are you speaking now on or after the termination, the effective date of the termination? Q. On and after the effective date... A, Or on and after the notice? Q. Let’s take it on and after the notice. Testimony of Paui B. Callis A. On and after the notice, we met officially in Knox. ville with the officials of District 19 and the officials of Local 581. We met a second time, but that meeting was adjourned for a second meeting in Chattanooga; then there were subsequent meetings conducted by Mr. Roberts at Palmer, in the interest of saving the expense of travel, Those meetings took place between I’d say January the lst and March the 15th. They could be a little one 337 way or the other. Q. What officials of the union, meaning District 19, were at either of these meetings? A. Mr. Ridirgs—President of District 19, Mr. Task and Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Harvey Brown, Mr.—several of the local men. I can’t recall the names, but a total of 13 or 14 union officials between the local at Palmer and the Dis- trict 19. Q. Among those, in addition to those union officials from District 19 in Middlesboro, if I understand your testimony correctly, there was some of the local officials of local unions, both 7083 and 5881. Is that correct, sir? A. I am not sure about 7083, but I am sure about Local 5881. . Q. Did some of those meetings also take place in Palmer! A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Which is your headquarters, isn’t it? A. Well, after the meeting in Knoxville and the meet- ing in Chattanooga, then Mr. Roberts met with them on a local level. Q. Did any of those meetings, or did any of those ne- gotiations result in the execution of a new contract be- tween your company and the United Mine Workers of America? A. No, sir. Q. The last direct conversation, which I understand that ‘ — 2299 — Testimony of Paul B. Callis you had with Mr. Ridings, then, was at the meeting here in Chattanooga? A. How far forward from March 15th of 1960 are 338 you speaking of; Up to the present time? Q. Yes. Have you had recent meetings with Mr. Ridings? A. Well, you see, after a year has gone by, in June of 61 I was elected President. I had several meet- ings with Mr. Tony Boyles, in Washington, Mr. Kennedy, and talked with several of the International officials about the problem, and then about several problems relating to mechanizing, and so forth. Q. During all of that period of time, whether the meet- ing was in Palmer, Washington, or where it was, was the topic of discussion the execution of this National Bitu- minous Wage Agreement of 1958, as amended? A. Yes, sir. We asked, first if the contract could be amended to fit the economic conditions in this field. Q. Yes, sir. Now, without going any further, that’s Wes. Mr. Rayson: Your Honor... Q. Let’s move off of that subject ... Mr. Rayson: asked the witness what period he is talk- ing about, and that is immaterial, we think. The Court: All right. Mr. Van Derveer: Let me clear up Mr. Rayson’s one question and we’ll move on. Q. Did that deal with the period of time immediately following the cancellation of the contract? A. It did . . . let me say this; no, it did not. Q. Do you know the terms of employment between 339 the Grundy Mining Company and Mr. Paul Gibbs? A. No, sir, I don’t. It would be hearsay if I were to say that. sees Mc Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. That employment took place, the testimony showed, by phone, I believe, and you weren’t . . . how did you re. ceive information about Mr. Gibbs... A. Hearsay. Q. Yes, sir. Was that relayed to you by whom? A. Mr. Harwood. Q. Mr. Harwood. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Callis, were you out in the Gray’s Creek area the 15th or 16th of August, 1960? A. No, sir. Q. You did not go there either day? A. No, sir. Q. So what actually transpired there, of your own per- sonal knowledge, of course you do not know, do you? A. That’s right. Q. That was the 15th and 16th. Let’s move to the fol- lowing day, which was the 17th. Where were you on the 17th of August, 1960? A. At the Tracy City office, concerned about being in- volved in sales, and responsible for sales, concerned about the contracts and shipments of coal, and made arrange- ments to go to Palmer to the shipping office and the Vice-President in charge of operations office ... 340 Q. Who was—— A. Mr. Roberts—to discuss what had taken place, and what chances there were for production of a contract at T. V. A. Q. Do you recall the events that took place on the 17th of August, 1960? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did these events take place? A. Palmer. Q. Who was with you at the time? A. Mr. Allison, the Treasurer. — 231la — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. Treasurer of the company. At that time, you had certain contracts to fill, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Very briefiy, Mr. Callis, and without me interrupting you any more often than necessary, tell us what time of the day you went over to Palmer, you and Mr. Allison, and what transpired while you were there? A. The best I can remember, it was after lunch, ar- riving at the Palmer office sometime, I’d say around two, calling Mr. Roberts by phone. He came to the office from his house where we discussed what had taken place—— Mr. Kramer: Now, your Honor, we object to this dis- cussion and what transpired there among the officers of this corporation—— Q. Well, Mr. Callis, they object to that. Let’s limit 341 ‘this to just exactly what happened, without regard to what was said between any of the parties, what- soever; just exactly what was said? I mean what was done? A. When I finished my discussion with Mr. Roberts and said let’s go to the store and have a Coca-Cola, we pro- ceeded across trom the office to the company commissary. A great number of men had come into town. I went into the commissary store, went through the crowd into the commissary store with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Allison, had a Coca-Cola. After about 20 minutes of passing the time of day I told Mr. Roberts I had to get back—— Mr. Kramer: I object to this your Honor—— - Mr. Van Derveer: That’s right. Q. Leave the conversations out and—— A. Left the store, came outside; the group had reached probably 100 or 125 men—— Q. Excuse me. Were there any firearms there? A. Mr. M. L. Gary jumped upon the platform—— — 232a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Mr. Kramer: Your Honor, I object to this as being wholly irrelevant and immaterial for any purpose in this lawsuit—— 342 The Court: I’ll overrule the objection. Q. Mr. Callis, I want to point out to you, for the re. mainder of this testimony, do not, under any circum. stances, relate what someone said to you or what you said to someone else. Now, after you left the commissary there, I believe, and your Coca-Cola, accompanied by Mr, Allison, were you? A. Yes, sir. 343 Q. What happened to either you or to him? A. Mr. M. L. Gary—— Q. Just a minute. I don’t want you to even use any names on that; just what happened. A. One of the men grabbed my right arm, underneath on the tender skin, pulled my arm away, I was cursed with the most vile language that I have ever heard, I was told to get out—— Q. Just a minute, now. Do not say anything that was said, see. Not one single word that was said. After this, what did you do and what did Mr. Allison do? A. I walked through the crowd, where there were guns visible, end got in the car, and as I got in the car a— Q. Go ahead. A. ——truck pulled in front of the car; a man got out and put a 30.30 carbine on me as I was getting in the car; we left town normally and cautiously. Q. When you left, who was with you at the time? A. Mr. Allison. Q. When you left, you and Mr. Allison, where did you go? A. Back to Tracy City. — 233a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. Can you identify in that mob, that group, excuse me, any of the members of either 7083 or 58811? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, name them. Not what they said; Just name them. A. Mr. M. L. Gibbs, Mr. Fred Morrison, Clarence Mc- Govern and Mr. M. L. Gary’s younger brother, I don’t recall his name. a * @ * s & e 344 Q. All right, let’s put it this way. How long was it before you were able to get any production out of those Gray’s Creek Mines? When were they open? A. Many months, I don’t know the exact time. Q. Now, at the time they were opened, and to a degree this is repetitious, how many mines are there up there, now? A. Eight. Q. Yes, sir, but they are in production now, in varying degrees, are they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how many foremen do you have in that area, there? A. In excess of fifteen. Q. Yes, sir. Now, in employing those men, you did not employ Mr. Gibbs, did you? 345 rPOoPOPOD — 237a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. Now, that company continued to operate under a con- tract with the United Mine Workers, didn’t they? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You say that Tennessee Consolidated has not had a contract with the United Mine Workers since it eancelled its contract, back in the first of 1960. Is that correct? A. That’s correct. 350 Q. 1 asked you if your company did not, in the spring of 1961, enter into a contract with the Allen and Garcia Engineering Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. As a part of your understanding with Allen and Garcia, is it not true that Allen and Garcia was to operate your Coal Valley Mine, providing you worked out a con- tract with the United Mine Workers? A. Yes, sir. : Q. And then did work out a contract with the United Mine Workers? A. And they signed it. Q. Allen and Garcia signed it? A. Yes, sir. Q. You reimbursed Allen and Garcia for all of its ex- penses? 351 OrOorPop> © . I’m asking you. Are you saying that your own gen- eral superintendent did that to you? 355 A. All I said was he was with the crowd. Q. I’m asking you if you do say that? A. No. 1 don’t say that. Q. You say you saw two checks, which you understand were given to buy groceries for some of the coal miners, were given to them by District 19. Do you recall when you saw those checks? Can you pinpoint that date? A. How close do you want to pin that down? Q. Let me ask you this: Wasn’t that in November or December of 1961, Mr. Callis? Does that sound about right to you? A. I can’t remember the exact time, Mr. Rayson. Q. Did you lease this strip mine land to Mr. Gibbs and — 24la — Testimony of Paul B. Callis that other fellow after your Whitwell Coal Company stopped stripping? A. Some time after. Q. Was it the same land? A. Oh, no. Q. But it was after you stopped stripping operations with your own company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it was after that that you leased this strip mine land to Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Sanders? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us how this new mine of yours in the Dogwood Flats area or Gray’s Creek area compares from a mechanization standpoint with the other mines 356 here in this part of the country? A. Are you speaking of the big mines? Q. Yes, sir. A. It’s the—of course, you asked of the present com- pany, it’s the most modern mine in Tennessee, as far as I’m concerned. The equipment is the most up-to-date. We’re having quite a bit of trouble finding qualified people to man the equipment. Q. Does it take skilled people to run it? A. Very definitely. Q. Does it take skilled people to manage it? A. Sir? Q. Does it take skilled people to manage this equipment? A. It certainly does. I had to discharge one that didn’t pan out yesterday. 357 Q. How much, just roughly, is the investment in—— A. I couldn’t give you the exact dollar, but I can give you a pretty fair guess. To equip a mine of this type it would run about $30,000.00 per man—— — 242a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. And how many men would you—— A. This is a varying factor. We haven’t fully equipped it yet. We’re preparing to add another unit. Those nnits cost $150,000.00 apiece; we have two units in the mine now, and are preparing to put a third one in. The active equipment represents approximately 50 per cent of the total, overall underground investment, and then you have the developmental cost from the outside, erection shops, and so forth, so it will knock a pretty big million dollar bill in the hole; put a big hole in it. Q. This mine, of course, replaced your Coal Valley Mine? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the broad sense? A. Yes. ; Q. Is it not true that the mines that Mr. Gibbs was to open in 1960 were five mines with eight employees each? Was that not the schedule that your company had worked out? 358 A. It could have happened one of two ways; it could have been five mines, or it could have been two mines. Q. Well, let me ask this. Was that not your plan when Mr. Gibbs was engaged? A. It was a double plan; it depended on what happened, and how the men reacted whether we were successful or not. The basic plan was to install two mines to produce approximately 600 tons in each, per day, double shifting, the idea being to install two CLR loaders to five Twelve cutting machines, two—61 AM Fan conveyers, and our 30 inch conveyer belt line, and the proper bin arrangements on the outside. Q. You testified previously on the pre-trial deposition of this case, and I believe you explained in that deposi- tion that you didn’t know then whether or not you would — 243a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis run these mines for your own account, or whether or not you would lease them out to an individual operator? : A. They were to be leased out after they were success- fully in production because the company was unable to conduct business with the union up there, in dealing with the men, whereas individuals seem to be able to get men to work for six, eight, or ten dollars a day cheaper then we could. Q. In any event, you didn’t know how long Mr. Gibbs would actually be on your payroll? You didn’t know how long it would take you to get them into production? A. Do you mean on salary? 359 Q. Yes. A. No. On salary I don’t know, but now on lease, it would have been for the full extraction of the tonnage that was allocated to the mine. Q. As of August 15th, you didn’t heow how long it would take you to get those mines in production, did you? A. No, sir. Q. It might have been a month, or it might have been two months? A. Well, you see, in building a mine, Mr. Rayson, it takes developmental time. You don’t fully develop the mine until you’ve penetrated your entries, developed your cross entries to get into room work, before you realize full production. Q. Yes, sir. A. We’re still in developmental stage with this mine, yet it has been producing two or three months. We won’t reach full production from our room work on the eross entries on this Gray’s Creek Number eleven mine, until probably after the first of the year. Q. Are you speaking of your large mechanized mine, now? — 244a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis A. Yes, sir. And the same thing is true of a small mine; you must develop your entries to create room work, Q. I’m asking you this because I certainly don’t knoy. Is it not true that it would take less time to develop one of the smaller mines to its potential than it would a larger mine? 360 A. Yes, sir. The size of the mines directly purport to the development time. Q. Is it not reasonable to estimate that something on the order of a month or two months is about the normal time to open one of these smaller mines and get it to its production? A. Not the type mine that was intended by the opera- tions department for Mr. Gibbs. Q. Would you say two and a half or three months? A. It would take, in my opinion, somewhere between six months and a year to get it into full production, to get the two of them. Of course they’re both the same type. Q. But depending on what happened during this in- terval, you say then is when your company would decide whether or not to lease out these mines? A. No. We were going from the beginning, to definitely let Mr. Gibbs have a lease, but to aid the developmental cost, the company was spending money, and hired Mr. Gibbs to develop the mine, to put the mine in, and get it up into development, because I’m sure that Mr. Gibbs does not have the kind of money that it would take to put a mine in, but to get his manpower, and develop the mine, and get it into production. Then, once it was done, we would then in turn lease the mine to him. He had the lease, but he was on salary until he reached produe- tion. Q. Then you don’t know just exactly how long it would take to reach production on those mines? 361 A. It would be a guess. — 245a — Testimony of Paul B. Callis Q. Just a guess? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of course, your agreement with Mr. Gibbs, you could change it at any time you wanted to; you didn’t have any commitment with him as to how long he was to stay on salary, or anything else, is that correct? A. No, sir. That was Mr. Harwood. Q. You didn’t know Mr. Gibbs before that, did you? A. Yes, sir. I’ve known Mr. Gibbs since 1946. Q. You hadn’t met him before that? A. No; October of ’46. Q. Who was your operating man in 1960? Who was the head of your operation? A. State that again. Q. Who was the head of your operations down here, in 1960? A. Mr. Everett Roberts. Q. He was the man who would make these kind of decisions? 2 A. He and Mr. Hampton. As I mentioned to you on the deposition, the most decisions were group decisions, but Mr. Hampton, being President, and Mr. Roberts being Vice-President, they were the final say on operations. Q. Mr. Hampton stayed in Nashville, and Mr. Roberts stayed here, in this area—— A. Palmer. 362 Q. Palmer. Does he still live there? A. Yes, sir. He lives in Palmer. — 246a — 2 X Testemony of William B. Allison 363 WILLIAM B. ALLISON, having first been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 364 Direct Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. Will you state your name, please, sir. A. William B. Allison. Q. And by whom are you employed, Mr. Allison? A. Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company. Q. In what capacity? A. Treasurer. Q. Now, let’s go back to the 15th and 16th of August, 1960, At that time, by whom were you employed? A. Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company. Q. In what capacity? A. I was not an officer of the corporation at that time. I was new with the company and just had come with it a few months prior. Q. What position, if any, did you hold with the Grundy _ Mining Company? A. None, whatsoever. Q. Now, on those dates, or immediately prior to it, where was your office, or where were you actually located? A. Tracy City, Tennessee. Q. In the offices of the Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company, I believe? A. That is correct. Q. Now, do you know of your own knowledge, any- 365 thing at all about the events that took place out in the Dogwood Flat area the 15th and 16th of August, 1960? A. No, sir. I was not present there. I cannot give of my own knowledge. — 247a — Testimony of William B. Allison Q. Yes. Now, on the 17th of August, that is, the day following, which I believe was on Wednesday, were you in the Palmer area? A. Either the 17th or the 18th. Q. Yes, sir. A. It could be verified. Q. Now, who, if anyone, was with you at that time? A. Paul Callis. * a * * * * * Q. And do I understand you correctly, sir, to say that the two of you were there in Palmer? A. That’s correct. Q. Now, Mr. Allison, without—and I want to caution you to be extremely careful—do not relate anything whatso- ever that was said to either you or to Mr. Callis that day —nothing that was said—but in your own words, briefly but completely, tell us what happened when you arrived at Palmer that day? Mr. Kramer: Your honor, if it please the Court, this is evidence similar to what your honor heard yes- 366 terduy—the same objection without going into de- ta']—— The Coart: All right. Overrule the objection. A. We arrived in Palmer some time shortly after lunch. I wouldn’t be exact on it—I’d say one to two o’clock, along in that neighborhood. After certain conferences and business discussions in the Palmer office, we proceeded to go to the commissary before leaving Palmer. On going to the commissary, we went through a rough crowd of men and into the commissary in the company of one other person. We discussed normal discussions within the com- missary, and on leaving, when we came out, the mob was considerably larger. Q. Were there any firearms present? — 248a — Testimony of William B. Allison A. There was later. Q. Yes, sir. Go ahead, sir. A. At that time Mr. Callis was grabbed by the arm 367 under here. Conversation ensued. I turned and put my back to Mr. Callis’ back as a matter of protection to both of us. And due to the attitude of the mob, the things that occurred, it was best for us to leave, and leave promptly. I’m trying to leave conversation out, that’s why it’s hard—— Q. That’s all right. Go ahead. A. So we left, proceeded to get into my automobile, and I was driving. A panel truck drove up and attempted to block us from backing out. Then it pulled to the side to attempt to block us if we got out. They began to jump out of that, the men did. I very calmly backed the car between the back bumper of the panel truck and the curb, back out into the street like, turned and started to leave promptly. As we started to leave, two cars of young men pulled in side by side, taking each lane of the road, as we started over the railroad track and up the hill, which did not allow us to pass and we drove at about 10 miles or 15 miles per hour. We calmly drove behind them and after we got over the hill, one proceeded to turn off. The other one we did not attempt to pass until we got clear of all bridges, where if anybody cut into us, we had shoulder to take it off on. At that point we passed them and pro- ceeded at full speed back to Tracy City. Q. Now was there much or little violent or filthy lan- guage used that day? A. What was used was violent and filthy. 368 Q. All right, sir. Did you recognize in the—you de- fined crowd or group or mob—any of the people that were there? A. Yes, sir. I did. — 249a — Testimony of William B. Allison Q. Who were those, sir? A. There was Marvin Lee Guerry; there was Chief Guerry—Chief is a nickname. Q. Yes, sir. A. And there was Fred Morrison. There was a Guerry boy, whose first name I cannot call. Q. Yes, sir. A. And there was Clarence McGovern. Q. Yes, sir. A. And I wouldn’t attempt to try to name in the excite- ment any other names, no more familiar than I was—— Q. Were any firearms drawn upon either you or Mr. Callis? A. There was a firearm taken from the panel truck. Q. All right, sir. 369 A. Now, I didn’t watch it any farther at the time, after it was taken, because I had one job and that vas to concentrate on getting through 6 inches and out of there. Q. So— A. I just turned my head from it, turned to the back, and backed right out. Q. All right. Now, I believe you said you went on back to Tracy, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You and Mr. Callis. Now, the night of the 16th, which I believe, Mr. Allison, was the day of the night before the events that you’ve just testified about, did you see Mr. Paul Gibbs? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Where? A. I saw him all night long, just about. Q. Were you with him most of the night? A. A bigger part of it. Q. And who was with you, other than Mr. Gibbs? — 250a — Testimony of William B. Allison A. Mr. Paul Callis and Mr. Houston Beaumont. Q. The three of you with Mr. Gibbs? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did the four of you spend that night? Mr. Kramer: Now, your honor, we object to that—as | recall the objection was sustained—— 370 Mr. Van Derveer: I believe that certainly an ob. jection was sustained to certain opinions as to why they were together, but as to what they actually did, I don’t recall the Court .. . The Court: Overrule the objection at this time. Q. Now, here again, Mr. Allison, I do not want yon to relate anything at all that was said, even between any of you or anyone else, but limit your testimony to exactly what you saw. What time of the evening of the 16th did you meet Mr. Gibbs? A. To recall the exact time, it was after the dinner hour —I’d say along the neighborhood of 6, 7-7:30—along in there. Q. And how long did the three of you stay with Mr. Gibbs that night? A. We met Mr. Gibbs in Monteagle. Q. All right. And how long did you stay with him that night? é A. Off and on, we stayed with him all night. Q. All right, sir. And what time the following morning was it that you left Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Gibbs left you? A. I would say in the neighborhood of 6 o’clock. Q. 6 o’clock the following morning? A. Yes, sir. a * * * * * * 371 Q. Now, Mr. Allison, there’s an allegation in this original petition that the Grundy Mining Company did have a ready market for its coal, specifically a con- — 25la — Testimony of William B. Alliz.n tract for the delivery of certain coal to the United States Navy. Is that true? A. Grundy Mining Company was the producer on a con- tract bid by Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company to supply approximately 35,000 tons of coal to Redstone Arsenal. 372 Q. Now, Mr. Allison, is the Gray’s Creek area mine, or is the Gray’s Creek Mine or the Grundy Mine there in operation today? A. Yes, sir. Q. It is in active production today, is it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how many different—whether you call them foremen or superintendents or so forth—does the com- pany have in that immediate area? A. We have 10 in addition to the large mine. Q. Yes, sir. A. Now, there are one or two of those mines that are in strictly preliminary stages and may not be moving as yet. Q. In the process of being opened? Did you, when you opened these mines, after the period of time that they were closed, or kept from being opened, did you employe Mr. Gibbs? 373. =A. No, sir. Q. Although you did employ—or your company did employ—others in the same or similar capacity? A. Yes, sir. Q. On these mines—or in these mines—without going into details of each particular classification, but in what you refer to as the big mine, and if there’s any difference what will be referred to as the small mine, what is the daily pay scale that you are paying there? — 252a — Testimony of Willium B. Allison A. Well, to take a rough average, in the big mine, it’s about $26.00 a day, or $130.00 a week. Q. Now is that on a single shift? A. That’s on a single shift. Q. $130.00 a week? A. Yes. Q. Now, if—or are these mines working any of them on a double shift? A. Yes, sir. They’re working different men on the sec- ond shift. Q. I see. Now, of course, the different classifications there—some make more, some less, is that. . . .? A. There is a variation between a machine operator, cutting machine operator, or loader, shuttle car operator, they’re paid per scale for their job classification. There’s not a great variation in them, but there’s a little accord- ing to skill. 374 Q. But then am I correct in saying that what you would define as the mean pay—the average pay— that’s roughly $26.00 per day? A. That’s what I’m thinking of, yes, sir. Just an aver- age. Q. We have nothing further of this witness. Cross-Examination, By Mr. Rayson: Q. Mr. Allison, you have told the jury about a group of men that you referred to as a mob, that you saw around the 17th or 18th of August in Palmer. And you’ve identi- fied 4 men amongst them: M. L. Guerry, Chief Guerry, Fred Morrison, and Clarence McGovern. Is that correct? A. That’s correct. — 253a — Testimony of William B. Allison Q. Now, Guerry was then employed at your—or 375 then had been employed at your Coal Valley Mine, was he not? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And he was the one who grabbed you by the arm, wasn’t he? Or grabbed Mr. Callis? A. Grabbed Mr. Callis. Q. By the arm. Was he under the influence at that time? A. I would think he was. Q. And is he the one who spoke rather harshly to you? A. He spoke rather harshly to Mr. Callis when I turned my back around to Mr. Callis. Then the one that spoke directly harshly to me was his brother. The big Chief is his brother. Q. Yes. Was he an employee of your company, too? A. He was a previous employee, yes. Q. Now, did Mrs. Guerry, or one of those people, later call you on the telephone and apologize? A. Not to me, sir. Q. Did they convey some apology to you? A. Chief gave—conveyed an apology to me. Q. Yes, sir. And these Guerrys were rehired by your company ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Fred Morrison—— A. Excuse me, Chief Guerry was not rehired at the time, because there was not anything that he could qualify for. Q. I see. 376 A. That was the only reason. Marvin Lee, the one who grabbed hold of Mr. Callis, was reemployed. Q. Yes, sir. Now you say Fred Morrison was a part of that mob, too? A. He was in it, standing there. Q. Have a gun? — 254a — Testimony of William B. Allison A. If he did, I couldn’t see it. 'Q. Now, Fred Morrison is not a member of the United Mine Workers? A. No, sir, he is not. Q. He’s your general superintendent, isn’t he? A. He was at that time, but he’s never been since then, Q. He’s your—he has a lease from you people now, and is working on a lease, isn’t he? A. Yes, sir, he’s an independent operator. Q. Yes. How long were you there in that yard that day in front of the store? A. At a time like that, it’s hard to judge time. Q. 10 minutes? A. So I ask you to forgive me if I’m wrong. 10 minutes would be very good. Q. How many men would you say were there? A. By the time we got away, I’d say there was 75 to a 100. Q. But you left after about 10 minutes? A. Yes, sir. 377 Q. Now, Mr. Allison, you talked about your large mine on Gray’s Creek? A. Yes, sir. Q. That’s the m. where you’re paying your men approximately $26.00 a day? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that correct? A. Some more, some less. Q. Those men are members of the United Mine Workers Union? A. To my knowledge, I think all of them are members of the United Mine Workers. Now. they could or could not be, accordingly. I can’t verify it, but I’d say the majority of them are. — 255a — Testimony of William B. Allison Q. Now, you’re not saying that you pay that scale in the other mines that you have there, are you? A. The other mines are not highly mechanized. Q. No. A. They will make from—a little better than a $100.00 a week . . . better than 20 dollars a day. Q. They make right at $20.12 a day. A. $20.12. Last week I think most of the men in those mines made around $130.00. They worked on Saturday. Q. All right, sir. And in fact you hire a foreman in those mines—in ,your non-mechanized mines—for $25.00 a day, don’t you? A. That’s correct, sir. Q. So you’re actually paying the foreman in those 378 mines less than you’re paying the coal miners in the other one? A. That’s correct, sir. The Court: Just a moment. Mr. Allison, did you at the time of the incident there at the commissary, did you know Mr. George Gilbert? A. No, sir. I didn’t. The Court Did you know any members of the District 19, at that time, or did you see or recognize any of those members there? A. No, sir. And I don’t think I’d met any of them at that time. The Court: All right. (Allison excused.) Mr. Kramer: Your Honor, I renew my motion to strike this evidence with reference to the occurrence over there-——— The Court: I believe the motion to strike should be overruled. ‘ 256a a Testimony of Jim Campbell 414 JIM CAMPBELL, having first been duly sworn, testifies as follows: Direct Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. Will you state your name please, sir? A. Jim Campbell. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Campbell? A. Tracy City. Q. And how long have you lived there? A. All my lifetime. Q. And what age man are yon? A. 48. Q. Have you ever worked in or around the mines in that area? , A. Ever since I’ve been big enough to work, that is all I have ever done. Q. Now, what type or kind of work did you or have you done over there over the years? A. Mining coal and hauling coal. Q. Have you—are you an operator over there? A. Yes. Q. Do you run a mine now? A. Yes. Q. And where is your mine? A. It is Tepeo property. 415 Q. Now, you have used the word Tepco, meaning what? A. Tennessee Products and Chemical Corporation. Q. How long have you known Mr. Gilbert? A. Several years, I’d say since 1953 or 754. Q. Now, who is this Mr. Gilbert? — 257a — Testimony of Jim Campbell A. He is field representative for the UMW. Q. Do you know Mr. Paul Gibbs, the plaintiff in this ease? A. Yes. Q. How long have you known Mr. Gibbs? A. Well, a long time, 25 years. 416 Q. Now, Mr. Campbell, and I direct these next few questions now to that period of time, the 15th, 16th, 17th of August, 1960. Did you see Mr. George Gil- bert on either of those days? A. I seen him about the 17th. Q. And where were you when you saw him? A. At his home. Q. What was the occasion for you going there? A. Well, I went down to have a talk with him about something that had happened. Q. All right, sir. And who, if anyone, was present there other than you and Mr. Gilbert? A. Just me and Mr. Gilbert. Q. And I believe you have told us it was at his home. Can you fix the time of day the best you can? A. It was in the afternoon. Q. All right. And while there, did Mr. Gilbert make certain statements pertaining to or relating to Mr. Paul Gibbs? A. Yes. Q. What statements were those that he made? A. Well, he said Paul was trying to bring the Southern Labor Union into the coal fields. 417 Q. What if anything did Mr. Gilbert say further in that regard? A. Well, he said the union wouldn’t let him do it. Q. What further if anything did Mr. Gilbert say? — 258a ~ Testimony of Jim Campbell A. Well, he said they had ways of preventing him from doing it. Q. What further if anything did Mr. Gilbert say about or relating to Mr. Gibbs? A. That’s about all. He talked about what had hap. pened down at Gray’s Creek, and he seemed to think Gibbs was going to have to go. Q. What statements, what further statements if any, did Mr. Gilbert make about the ways and means that—by which Mr. Gibbs had to go? A. He said he had friends in high places that could move him out from the mining business. Mr. Van Derveer: You may ask him. Cross-Examination, By Mr. Rayson: Q. You related this conversation to Mr. Gibbs, I take it? A. Sir? Q. You related this conversation that you had with Mr. Gilbert to Mr. Gibbs? 418 A. Well, I don’t remember it, I must have talked it somewhere, I’m here as a witness. Q. You talked to Mr. Gibbs about this? A. Yes, I talked to Mr. Gibbs about it. 419 Q. Well, you have told Mr. Gibbs, I take it, about this? A. I might have. Q. Now, I’m asking you about Mr. Gibbs. Weren't you and he in business together some way? A. No, we had a contract through Tennessee Products at the cement plant. I put in half of it and Mr. Gibbs put half. _— Testimony of Paul Gibbs Q. I see. And that was the contract that was cancelled pecause of the high ash, wasn’t it? A. Well, I don’t know exactly why. Q. Well, that is what they told you, wasn’t it? A. The contract was never cancelled. Q. Well, did you haul any more coal to the cement .. . A. Still hauling the coal. Q. You are. Do you have a mine now? A. Yes. Q. Where is your mine located? A. Daus. Q. In Daus? A. That’s right. Q. You had this conversation with Mr. Gilbert in 420 Mr. Gilbert’s home, is that right? A. Yes. 421 PAUL GIBBS, recalled. Redirect Examination, By Mr. Van Derveer: Q. Mr. Gibbs, there has been introduced into evidence here and identified as the plaintiff’s exhibit number 33, what reports to be a recap of your business activities in your Products mine for the week ending August 12, 1960. I’m going to hand you this, and then I would like to ask you several questions about it, sir. And you may also refer to your ledger book, if you so desire. Mr. Kramer: In order that there be no question, your Honor, you have our objection to this, I guess we’ll make it at this time. The Court: Yes, and the objection is overruled. Q. Mr. Gibbs, what is this Exhibit 331 What does it report to show? — 260a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs A. That’s the full payouts and the gross receipts for the week ending August 12, 1960. Q. Now speak out just a little louder. Now where are these figures taken from? A. From this 1960 ledger. Q. All right, sir. Now are these figures estimates then, or are they actual figures taken from your ledger sheet? A. They are actual figures taken from my—— Q. Now, the ledger sheets—Do you know of your own knowledge that those are the true and correct 422 amounts that are listed therein? A. I keep my own ledger book, yes, sir. Q. All right, sir. Now referring to the week ending that period of time, you showed that you would have taken in, and some of this is the two products mine, for that week $2089.46. Is that correct? A. 48 cents. Q. 48 cents. At that time, how much were you selling this coal for? A. $4.05 a ton. Q. Now, to whom were you selling it? A. Tennessee Products. Q. All right. Now, you show here, coal loaded 318,28 tons. How did you arrive at that figure? A. We weighed my cars at different times; even the union has had them weighed, and they average 1600 pounds. ... Q. Then, is that an actual figure there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, in addition to that, you have coal purchased— 197.64 tons. What do you mean when you say—explain that figure? A. The second mine was operated on a tonnage basis, and I paid the fellow $2.00 per ton put in the.... Q. All right, sir. Then the total tonnage produced for — 26la — Testimony of Paul Gibbs those two mines for that week was what? The total ton. 493 =A. 515.92. Q. And you multiplied that times the 4.05 that you sold it for for the gross figure of $2089.48, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now let’s take your expenses, that is, what it cost you to produce that coal, item by item, as we go along. First you have loading labor, and you have the name James Ruben Short, $87.15. What was that? A. That was for loading coal in a month. 424 Q. All right. The total that you paid out to this group amounted to what? A. This group of coal loaders was $509.25. Q. All right. Then you have other labor. Now what do you mean there when you say there other labor? A. Two of the other fellows was running the motor, pulling the coal, and keeping the tracks next to the... . 425 Q. Now you have further costs down here—work- man’s compensation insurance—515.92 tons times 27 cents a ton. By what reason is it that you use a ton- nage figure rather than a state approved rate per $100.00 a payroll? A. Well, on that tonnage basis, that was worked out to cover the truck drivers as well as the men who worked underground. Q. And was computed on a tonnage basis? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Now, the 27 cents per ton meant that that week you paid how much for workman’s compensation insurance ? — 262a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs A. $139.30. Q. Now your payroll taxes amount to what and was computed on what basis? A. That was computed on a 3% Social Security and involved on-a-Unemployment. Q. So that the total there was 64% of your total pay- — roll? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which amounted to how much? A. $46.23. Q. Now, thereafter, Mr. Gibbs, you have certain items listed. Let’s go through each of them, and I’ll ask you for an explanation of them in their entirety. Gasoline, 25% of $1120.00 amounting to what? A. $280.00. Q. And your oil and grease, 25% of $48.00 amounting to? 426 A. $12.00. Q. Tires and tubes, 25% of $153.84 amounting to! $38.46. And truck repair, 25% of $222.87? $55.71. And truck insurance, 25% of $37.65? $9.41. And your truck tags, 25% of $41.04? . $10.26. . And depreciation, 25% of $422.08. A. $105.20. Q. Now how did you compute this, and what do you mean by the 25% of those figures? A. That’s a 25% of 8 trucks. Q. And on this you——- A. I used 2. Q. All right, sir. And you have heretofore testified in > OPOoPoPer — 263a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs this case the same figures on the 8, is that correct? All right, then, your total expense there, other than your labor, amounted to what? A. $1451.32. Q. So for those 2 mines, what you made, or would have had left, in fact had left, amounted to what for that one week? A. $638.16. Q. $600—I’ll pass this and let the jury see this, 497 please. Now, Mr. Gibbs, we picked out or you picked out in a one week—that is, the week ending August 12, 1960. Is what you made here, this particular week, in these two mines, an average of what you made each week in those mines? A. Yes, sir. It is. Q. Now how long, and in advantage to the defendant and so the jury will understand it, wasn’t it some period of time after that that one of these mines, what do you call it, worked out? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall when that was? A. To the best of my knowledge, it was either in Octo- ber of November of ’61. Q. Of ’61? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now that was the mine that was worked out? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which then left you with the one remaining mine? Is that correct? A. No, I had 2 over at Whitwell, the 74 and the 75 mine. Q. And then those are the leases that were cancelled off? A. That’s right. That’s correct. Q. Now on that phase, we have nothing further on that — 264a — Testimony of Paul Gibbs particular point, if it please the Court. We do on the other after lunch. — The Court: All right. * * * * *- * * 428 PAUL G [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0244%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.