# Appendix — Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees Union, Local 6 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386412_0183%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 391 U.S. 492 ## Text Leni A mw aARY y @SSPREME COURT It & APPENDIX. “Bikece- Supreme C Ceyit,. vu. FILED, MAR 15, 1903 BOHN F. DAV, OLERK Supreme Court of-the United States | OCTOBER TERM, 1967 - | W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Beuktany of ‘Labor, United States Department ‘of Labor, PETITIONER HOTEL, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 891 v. LOCAL 6— - 5. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED DECEMBER 6, 1968 CERTIORARI GRANTED, JANUARY 29, 1968 : PRAT SRE TES eB TERRES I RET all Ae SIT ae eee om Bees meey ie Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM,*1967 .«. ™ é ‘ @ . = No. 891 " ~ . W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, ic United States Department of Labor, PETITIONER | wos pee v. ; HOTEL, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, : LOCAL 6 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT ‘OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND es ” ” *% INDEX ; . ma _ . Page Notice of Motion —. oe: i Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss : 8 Affidavit of James Marley Dats rae Opinion of Judge McLean filed July 15, 1966 | 18 ; Answer _» ; iilapaiciaataniidsitcind Taare 7 22 Excerpts from Testimony ee ete rae A: Oe \ Plaintiff’s case: . cf . Welter Smith | a sdiilecchhcladiiseudbbieie 28 Cross ) hacia pein. ae BN On eR es raf . Excerpts from Testimony—Continued Exhibits at Trial: oe : is } ; Exhibit 1—Excerpts from defendant’s By-Laws’ bal . * * ¢ YE SI iS een Ae ter ee PRE Apts ad Set) rag 4 LRA SD REPRE IRS RAE EE . wv - Plaintiff’s case—Continued , James Marley* . . by: Direct _. : : casita sepa bicsaiants ene tenant enttgatenienaemenernaanitistiigte ‘Lubos Pavlista 2 Pe RI 1 tis sec phtedicnipieebes EK SSC ee. Faves & " Cross _.... “Echoes icacenadeipictesiaeletantanliithans tian: Patricia McGuire al o er Direct «nt me pen NN ne ed ere ne | Fred V. Heitmann — . Nee Se om cmpetiiisaiaapsaesaeaelaad ee site SING: pec eons scnstecmonent ASC eI Gene Quara ~ | Direct ARETE CREE res inskil RSS _ Charles Salavarria ’ Direct . - “Cross ne oie —laetletiiaaleiaiens iteesioinaets Charles Skopic = a i oe ae) She Cael csc 2, ARCATA er iene eNO Sn ORO Defendant’s case: iit : i James Marley = °°. : Direct? AR “% BOARD Cross . « Laws revised October 15, 1963): Ra eee Exhibit 2—Excerpts. from deferidant’s Sets tis. y vised March 1959) - Exhibit 3—Excerpts from n defeiidarit’s By-Laws (adopted “. September 26-27, 1951) Exhibit 4—Excerpts from defendant’ alate (adopted ' December 9-11, 1947 ) - 5 Page — a > .- see ot ae » ’ Exhibits at Trial—Continued Exhibit 27—Minutes of Meetings of defendant’s Election ‘’and Objections Committee preceding May . 19, 1965 election (Excerpts) ‘ ean. Exhibit 34—Report of defendant’s Election and.Objec- ~ - tions Committee for the May 19, 1965 election _______. 225 Exhibit 40—Record of initiations int@defendant union— I TE | widest cecnnicectatreternntirtins \ba0 Exhibit 47B—Excerpts from defendant’s . By-Laws (adopted November 15-16, 1941) : 241 | Exhibit 57—Letter dated —_ 5, 1962 concerning ad- é ministration caucus —-_-..:-------------------------------- 242 .. Exhibit 58—Chart concerning attendance at meetings of . defendant’s Assginbly iit asear hah cies chutes acoeaeapbeiink 2430 . Exhibit 59—Chart concerning dates and duration of ° Assembly meetings of defendant — ae Exhibit 60—Chart entitled “Past service of administra- ‘ . tion candidates for Assembly in 1965” ___........ 245 =: Exhibit 61—Chart entitled “New Eligibles created each year in Assembly elections” .. 246 Exhibit 62—Chart entitled “New Eligibles created enh year in Shop Delegates Council” | 247 by election to Executive Board” __ Exhibit 69—Chart entitled. “Prior Office-Holding As a: Qualification For 1 Union Offic#, As Provided In: " The By-Laws. of Large Hotel and Restaurant Em- ployees’ Local Unions, May 1965” - 249 Exhibit 70—Chart. entitled “Prior Office-Holding as a Qualification for National Union Office, as Provided in _ the Constitutions of National Unions. with 20,000 to. 40,000 Members, May 1965” si 258 Exhibit 71—Chart entitled. “Prior Office-Holding as a_ Qualification for Local Union Office, as Provided -in National Union Constitutions. and Local Bylaws Gov- erning Selected Large Local Unions, May.1965 _:.. 260 Exhibit 72—Chart entitled “Prior: Office-Holding as a - Qualification for Local Union Office as Provided in iG National Union Ognstitutions, May 1965 266 Exhibit 73—Deposition of Hans Cohn (Excerpts) — - 270 _Exhibit 63—Chart entitled “Number . eligibles created e ,:*-,. > epee Exhibits at Trial—Continued : ne Geet he or tian cnebaapinienssicipmecinbiigiand SE ass Exhibit C—(Excerpts) —Campaign sheet of ar nied Party i in.1965 election = Exhibit D—1966 Amendment to defendant’s Bate '. Exhibit E—Defendant’s chart of- number of votes cast in prior elections ______: __ eee peseaiiellapint ses Exhibits for Identification: Exhibit 55 Id. Exhibit 56 Id. Pade as AoW roe eee Pe Oe eNee a : - Opinion of Judge Wyatt Judgment and Permanent Injunction -entered March 29, “ yy 1967 ; SORES oe ee f .Notice of Appeal an Opinion of Court of Appeals te oniag Judgment of Court of Appeals -. Order, of Court of Appeals denying Petition for Rehearing In Banc é Order Allowing Certiorari __. ‘Exhibit BE paign sheet of Membership Party in Order of Court of Appeals Wenying Petition for Rehearing. ee’ °. : . , Te -UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW witcoal ce jt Civ. 626°. r W. Waan WIRTZ, Secretary of ae . United States Department of — PLAINTIFF : 2? Vv. ’ Horst, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, Loca, 6, DEFENDANT EXTRACTS ol cee DOCKET ENTRIES. ‘Date - oye et ee an . Jul. ‘Aug. Aug. 4-66—Filed complaint and issued- summons. *% 6-66—Filed stip. & order extending deft’s time to an- swer to 4- 13-66—Murphy, J. . 13- 66—Filed summons & return, served deft.—3- 10-66 . 15-66—Filed deft’s affdvt. & notice of motion to dis- . miss complaint—ret. 4-26-66 . 15-66—Filed stip. & order extending deft’s timé to an- | ¢ swer to 4-15-66—Murphy, J. . 26-66—Filed stip. ‘adjourning defts’ motion to 5- 10: 0:66 15- 66—Filed memorandum’ Opinion | #82558—deft’s | motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensi- ‘ble parties is therefore denied—paragraphs 8c- _8d & 9 have no proper place in this complaint—. _deft’s motion to strike them is. granted—/ So ered—McLean, J’ M/N 4-66—Filed deft’s ANSWER ak C&G 5-66—Filed stip. & order—extending time to deft. to ~ ‘answer to. 6-4-66—Herjands, al — Mar. Apr. Apr. Date — = | | Proceedings . 26-66—Filed order referring action to sotge Wyatt for all purposes—Sugarman, J 26-66—Filed pltff’s affdvt & notice of satinitinat for. . judge for all purposes ret 9-21-66 26-66—Filed memo endorsed—niotion for judge for all _ purposes is granted—Sugarman, J. ~ : 16-67-BeforegWyatt, J. non-jury trial begun 17-67—Trial continued 1 8-67— “ “ 19-67 > i | 19-67— “ “« and concluded—Decision Reserved; . 20-67—Filed deft’s brief . 20-67—Filed deft’s post-trial brief . 20-67—Filed pltff’s post-trial memorandum . .20-67—Filed pltff’s trial memorandum . 20-67—Filed pltff’s post-trial memorandum . 20-67—Filed deft’s post-trial brief — b 20-67—Filed deft’s brief ’ -20-67—Filed pltff’s trial - memorandum eee , 20-67—Filéd Opinion +33, 334—the opinion contains the finding® of fact and conclusions of law— A judgment in accordance with the —— may . be submitted on notice—Wyatt, J. 29-67—Filed order enjoining defts. from sti in . any further election of deft., any by-law re- quiring priot office holding asa qualification for office—jurisdiction of the court is retained for the purpese of enforcing or modifying this permanent inj unction—Wyatt, J .—Judgment— _ Clerk mailed notice ent 3-30-67 21-67—Fiied pltff’s notice of appeal—Mailed copy toy , Cohn & Glickstein ‘21-67—Filed stenographer’ s ‘minutes of ree of J an. 16, 67 4 ~ ‘COMPLAINT 8 . i: 8) ‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Pe d a 66 Civ. 626 -. W: WILLARD Wirtz, Secretary ot Labor, United States Department of Labor; PLAINTIFF Vv. HOTEL, MoTeL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, _ LOCAL 6, DEFENDANT: - Plaintiff, W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, by his attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, United States. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, os. of the defendant, alleges that: a 1. This is an action brought pursuant. to Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. 401 et. seg., and jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant.to Section 402(b) of the said Act, 29 U.S.C. .482(b): . -2. Defendant is: now, and at all times hereinafter stated has been, an unincorporated association under the laws of the State of New York with its principal “place of business in the County, City and‘State of New York. 8. Defendant now is, "and at all times. hereinafter stated, has been a local labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce, chartered by and- subordi- . [fol. 604] nate to its parent, the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International. Union, AFL- CIO, an international labor: organization (hereinafter, * | i | | —- called “The International”), all within the meaning of . +Sections 3(i), 3(j), and 401(b) of the said Act, 29 U.S.C. 402(i), 402(j), and.481(b). ; 4. On or about May 19, 1965 the defendant, purport- ing to act pursuant to its by-laws, held an election of officers, which election was subject to the provisions of. Titlé IV of the said Att, 29 U.S.C. 481 et seq. 5. On or about June 7, 1965, members in good stand- ing of the defendant, in accordance with the defendan:’s . by Laws, protested the conduct of the said election of offi- cers to the General President.of the International. This protest was denied by the General President-on or bout ‘June 11, 1965. Thereafter, on or about June -22, 1965, the said tmembers appealed to the General Executive Board of the International, in accordance with the con- stitution and by-laws of the International. No action has been taken by the General Executive Board with respect . to the said appeal. a. . ’ ae _ 6. Having invoked the remedies available under the defendant’s by-laws and constitution and the by-laws of the International, and having failed to obtain a final deci- ' sion within three .calendar months thereafter, the said members on or about September 81965, filed a complaint with the plaintiff in accordance with Section 402(a) of . the said Act; 29 U.S.C. 482(a), alleging that the defend- (fol. 605] ant violated- Section 401 of the said Act, 29 ‘U.S.C. 481, ir the conduct of the said elegtion of officers. 7. Pursuant to’ Section 402(b) of the said Act, 29 U‘S.C. 482(b), the plaintiff investigated said complaint and found probable cause to believe that violations of . Title IV of the Act had occurred in connection with -the conduct of the said.election and had not been’ remedied. 8. In the conduct of the said election, defendant vio- .. lated. Section 401(e) of the said Act, 29. U.S.C. 481(e}, in that it: ; bows Sale eh (a) Imposed: unreasonable qualifications upon its mem-— bers’ right to be candidates for and to hold union office, _ by limiting candidacy to persons having past or present membership in the Assembly, Executive Board, or the defunct Shop Delegates Council. - fi ‘ f . 6 (b) Denied to its members in good standing the right to nominate, vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of their choice by the imposition of the un- ‘reasonable qualification. upon the ‘members’ right to be ' candidates for and to hold —_. as set forth in sub-para- . graph (a) above. | , (c) Denied to its members in good standitig a reason- able opportunity to ndminate candidates for union office by failure to give adequate and timely notice of the com- position of its’ election districts. _ © .(@) Denied to its members in good standing the right . to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candi- (fol. 606]. dates of their choice without being subject to improper interference. 9. Defendant, in violation of Section 401(b) of the ® said Act, 29 U.S.C. 481(b), filled certain of. its offices (to wit, certain seats on its Executive Board and one of ‘its Vice-Presidencies) in a manner other than by élec- tion by secret ballot among its members in good standing. — ‘ 10. The violations of Sections 401(e) and 401(b) of ’ the- said Act, 29 U.S.C. 481(e) and 481(b), found and. alleged as aforesaid, may have affected ‘the outcome of the election. t . . ‘d t 6 WHEREFORE, desvan prays for judgment: (a) declaring the election held by the defendant Union on May 19, 1965, for officers to be null and void; (b) directing the conduct of a new election under the supervision of the. plaintiff; (c) for the costs of. this action; and (d)‘ for such other relief as may be appropriate Dated: ‘New York,-N. ¥. March 4, 1966. ROBERT M. MorGENTHAU, _ United States Attornéy for the Southern District of New York, . Attorney for Plaintiff, By ARTHUR S. OLICK © - —- --~ ARTHUR S. OLICK, - | Assistant United States Attorney. - Office & Post Office Address: United States Court House _ 7 Foley Square, New York, N. Y. 10007. - Tel: 264-6319 NOTICE OF MOTION fol. 610] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. 66 Civ. 626 as W. WILLARD WIRTz, Secretary of Labor, . . United States Department of Labor, PLAINTIFF v HoTEL, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 6, DEFENDANT _ . To:: HONORABLE ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU : United States Attorney for the-—--- + --Southern District of Neq York Attorney for Plaintiff ,_ U. S. Courthouse ~ Foley Square, New York ” . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned will bring on the annexed motion. for hearing before this Court at Room 506, United States Courthouse, Foley Square, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, on the 26th day of April, 1966, at 10:00 A.M. in the fore noon of that day or as soon thereafter. as counsel can be heard. . Dated: New York, New York, April 138, 1966. Yours, ete. : COHN AND GLICKSTEIN Attorneys for Defendant Office and P. O. Address “ 717 Fifth Avenue ; New York, New York 10022: \ By JEROME B. LURIE A Member of the Firm 4 7 7 DEFENDANTS MOTION 10 DISMISS _ (fol. 611) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. 66 Civ. 626, — W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United — — of Labor, PLAINTIFF i ff ee \ v, — a e HOTEL, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, | LocaL 6, DEFENDANT | Defendant moves this Court for an Order: 1. Dismissing the Complant herein for failure to join indispensable parties; or, in the alternative, 2. Striking paragraphs 8(c), 8(d), and 9 of the Com- ‘ plaint in that those portions of the Complaint allege vio- . lations of the Labor-Management Relations and Disclo- sure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. 401, ‘et seq. in connection _ with which no Union member has exhausted the remedies. available to him under the -By-Laws of the defendant - Union or the Constitution.of the International Union as required by Section 402(a) of said Act (29 U.S.C. 482), . as more particularly appears from the Affidavit of James . ‘Marley, sworn to the 13th day of ‘April, 1966, and an- nexed hereto and made a part hereof. COHN AND GLICKSTEIN Attorneys for Defendant Office and P. O. Address 717 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10022. By JEROME B. LURIE A Member of the Firm | AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES MARLEY - Cte 612]. UNITED. STATES DISTRICT COURT. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK —_- Civil Action No. ee: 66 Civ. .626 - ae _ W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, PLAINTIFF ita: Horst, MOTEL AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 6, DEFENDANT ?. STATE oF NEW York COUNTY OF NEW YORK §SS.: \ te Fe i : JAMES MARLEY, being duly-sworn, deposes and says: _ ae I am President of Hotel, .Motel and Club Employees Union, Local 6, AFL-CIO, the defendant herein, and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter referred to. I make this affidavit in seeiaiuace of defendant’s motion - for an Order: 1. Dismissing the Cemplaint: for failure to join indis- pensable parties; and 2. Striking those portions of the Complaint ( paragraphs. 8(c), 8(d) and 9) which allege violations of the Labor- ee Management Beporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 in ‘ connection with which no Union member has exhausted - remedies available to him under the By-Laws of the de- . fendant Union or the Constitution of the International Union. a > 7a .10 eee . = ‘oe Hotel, Motel and Club Employees Union, Local 6, AFL-- CIO (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”) is an un- - [fol. 613] incorporated association with a membership of approximately 27,000 hotel and club employees, employed in the City of New York. It is affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant .Employees and - Bartenders International '- Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the “Inter-. national Union’’). On May 19, 1965, the Union, in accordance with its ‘By-Laws and the Coristitution of the Interhational Union, conducted the ‘election of officers which is the-subject .of this action and which plaintiff Secretary of Labor seeks to have set aside. (Copies of the By-Laws of the Union and the Constitution of the International Union are an- nexed hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits “A” and “R respectively). In the election in qtestion, the undersigned _ his fellow officers were elected as salaried officials of: the — Union for a three-year term, terminating May 1968. -Certain members-of the Union who were denied the - _ right to run for office because they did not meet the eligi- _ bility requirements set forth in the By-Laws of the Union, ‘filed a: complaint with the plaintiff Secretary. Based .upon . their complaint, the Secretary has instituted this action. It is clear, however, from an examination of the actions’ _ taken by said individuals prior to filing their complaint -with plaintiff,-that they did not exhaust. the remedies .° available to them in the Union with regard to certain- _ matters upon which plaintiff predicates his claim for re- lief herein. The following short history of the facts derh- onstrates this beyond any ee of a doubt. (fol. 614] | | Prior to the election, t} e Election and Objections Com- . mittee of the Union y designated pursuant to the By- Laws) ruled certain nae of the Union ineligible to. run for office because they did not have the qualifications required by Section 7a (2) of ort igh of the By-Laws. That Section, insofar as is pertinént, provides: “In order to be eligible for nomination as an officer, a candidate must possess the following qualifications: \ \ “\ 11 (1) He must be a member of the Union in continuous | good standing for a period of two years immediately preceding his nomination; (2) He must be a member of either the Assembly. or the Executive Board, or else, at some time in the past, have served at least one year on either the Executive Boagd, the Assem- — bly, or the old Shop Delegates Council.” ~ On May 4, 1965, Joseph De Jesus, oné of tye members - of the Union ruled not qualified to run for office because he did not meet the foregoing requirements, appealed the ruling of the Election and Objections Committee to.the . General President of the International Union. In his ap- peal to the General President (a copy of which is annexed ° _ hereto, made a part hereof, and maiked Exhibit “C”), Mr. De Jesus stated his complaint in the following lan- guage: - : © . “In accordance with the U.S. Department of Labor, . ’ Bureau of Labor-Management Reports, Technical As- . sistance Aid No. 5, Revised June 1961; Title; Elect- ing Union Officers, under Contents 4 Nomination Procedures D. ‘Who May Be Nominated; and being a member in good standing for over ten years, I find | Article IV, Section 7a(2) of the Local 6 By-Laws, unreasonable and unconstitutional, deliberately tend- ing to discriminate against all members, except actu- ally providing purpose or-power to a selected few - who have remairied in office with none or hardly any opposition for over fifteen years.” (Emphasis sup- plied. ) — (fol. 615] | | - It is apparent from the foregoing that the sole question raised by Mr. De Jesus in his’appeal to the General Presi- dent was whether the eligibility requirements contained | in Section :'7a(2) of Article IV were reasonable. He did ~ not advert to any other aspect of the By-Laws of the Un- ion nor did hé complain of any other matter. - . The General President sustained the ruling of the Elec- tion and Objections Committee by letter dated May 6, 1965. (a copy of which is annexed hereto, made a part 9 2. fs | hereof, and marked Exhibit “D”). In his ruling the Gen- eral President, stated in part: _ @ “It is my opinion. after a review of this section and - of the applicable sections of the Landrum-Griffin: Act that Section 7 of the By-Laws of Local 6 establishes reasonable qualifications for eligibility to be a candi- date for’ and to hold office in Local 6. The purpose ' of that section is to ensure that a member who is nominated for office will have certain minimum qual- - - fications and at least:some working knowledge and experience in the. administration and. operation of the affairs of the local. In addition the qualifications © set forth in Section 7 appear to be easily attainable _ by any member of Local 6, and I find nothing i in this ~ section which is in any way discriminatory.” It is thus clear that the General President ruled upon only one question, i.e. whether Section 7a, (2). of Article IV was unreasonable or discriminatory. Upon receipt of the decision of the Qennved President, F Mr. De Jesus appealed his ruling to the International Executive Board of the International Union by - letter dated June 7, 1965, and the International Executive Board [fol. 616] affirmed the decision of the General PreSident. (Copies of Mr. De Jesus’ letter and the letter of the General Secretary-Treasurer of the International Union, ‘informing him of the gecision of the International Execu- tive Board, are annexed heretc, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibits “EK” and “F” respectiyely).. The foregoing correspondence represents the only in- vocation of the internal remedies available under the By- Laws andthe International Constitution by any com- ‘ plaining member of the Union prior to the election. Subsequent to the election, having lost by: a nine-to-one © majority, the Membership Party—to which Mr. De Jesus belonged—filed an appeal with the ‘General President. That appeal (dated June 7, 1965, a copy of which is an. nexed hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit | “G”) is also an appeal from the rulings of the Election. and Objections Committee of' the Union and in pertinent part reads> = ‘(upon wh “13. “In accordance with the U. S. Department of Labor, BLMR (Now LMMP) T.A. Aid #5, revised June 1961, Title: a. Union Officers under 4 (Nomi- — nation Procedures) D (Who May Be Nominated) we find the Article IV, Section 7a (2) of the Local 6 By-Laws is unreasonable and unconstitutional. These restrictive By-Laws tend to discriminate against. all members, except for a selected few who have -con- tinuously wemained in office through a series of elec- tions without opposition for the past: 15 years. We . _ _ further base our appeal on the manner in which the _ -members of the Local 6 Assembly are selected where- by it is impossible for members of an opposition party © such as ours to ever be elected to a position on the Assembly.” | * (fol. 617 6 : | The General* President once again on June 11, 1965 - Sustained the decision of the Election and Objections Com- - mittee (a copy of which is annexed hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit “H”);-and- the. appeal frem that ruling to the General Executive Board (a copy of which is annexed hereto, made a part hereof, and mark Exhibit .“I’) couched in language identical to that con- tained in the appeal to the General President hereinabove set forth, was denied by the General Executive Board | (Letters of the General Secretary- Treasurer ofthe Inter- 2 national Union, dated October 6, 1965, is annexed hereto, made a part hereof, and. marked Exhibit “J"). The two appeals referred to constitute, the only attempt on the p ony or. the complaining members of the Union complaint the Secretary predicates his right. to. bring: this action) to exhaust the internal remedies . available under the By-Laws of the Union and the Inter- - national Constitution.. The opify question raised on these appeals was the ques- tion of whether or not the qualifications to run for office, -contained in Section 7a (2) of Article IV of the By-Laws were reasonable.. In the Complaint in this action, as required by statute (29 U. S.C. 482), — alleges the a of oa 3 ‘ : 14 dies in accordance with the Union’s By-Laws and refers to the letter of June 7, 1965 (Exhibit “G”) of the mem- - bership ‘party to the General President of the Interna- tional in- support of this allegation (paragraph 5 of the Complaint). Defendant Union does not deny that the allegations contained in paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of. [fol.618] the Complaint are based upon matters with regard to which members of the ‘Union exhausted their internal remedies by appealing to the General President and: the International Executive Board as hereinabove set forth. These appeals were taken pursuant to Section 6 of Article IV of the Union’s By-Laws which provides in - part: ‘3 “The Election and Objections ‘Committee: shall also have the power to‘rule on any objections as to eligi- bility of any candidate to run for cffice, subject only to appeal to the General President of the Interna- . tional Union.” As has: been demonstrated, only the question of eligi- ‘bility to run for office was raised by the complaining Union members in their appeal to the General President of the International Unioh. No other matter was before him. Indeed, under this particular provision of the By- Laws, this was the only question which could be raised. ‘Any other matter would have to be presented under the appropriate provisions of the International Constitution. Despite this fact, there is contained in the Complaint in this action in paragraphs 8(e), 8(d) and 9, allegations . of violations of the law which were never raised by the . complaining Union members prior to their filing their - - complaint with: plaintiff. No atkémpt-has ever been made by them to exhaust the remedies available under the Con- stitution of the parent body, the —— Union, . with regard to these matters. The paragraphs i in question read as follows: fol. 619] , X | “8. (¢) Denied to its members in good standing a reasonable opportunity to nominate candidates for - \. 15 - union office by failure to give adequate and timely notice of the composition of its election districts. . “8. (d) Denied to its members in good standing the right to vote for or otherwise support the candi- + date or candidates of their choice without being sub- ject to improper interference. ~ | “9. Defendant, in violation of Section 401(b) of the said Act, 29 US.C. 481(b), filled certain of its offices (to wit, certain seats on its Executive Board “. and one of its Vice-Presidencies) in a manner other than by election by secret ballot among its members in good standing.” None of the issues raised by said allegations was even adverted to in the appeals taken by the complaining Union me and, that being the case, it is quite clear that-no member of the Union sought to exhaust the reme- dies available to him under the Constitution of the Inter- national Union before complaining about these matters to plaintiff, if indeed they did so complain. .. The Constitution of the International Union provides a ready means for aggrieved members who feel deprived of a fair election to file charges with the International Union - and have their complaint adjudicated. In this case, how- -ever, as hgs been demonstrated, no attempt was made by the ‘individuals upon whose complaint the Secretary’s. - right to bring this action must be predicated, to bring such matters before: either the local’ or International ‘Union. for remedy. Consequently, neither -the Union nor the International Union was afforded an opportunity to remedy the alleged violations. That such remedies were - available to complainants can not be doubted. [fol.620] .- Section 11(b) of Article X of the International Con- ‘stitution provides in part: “Thé Local Unions shall provide safeguards to in-. sure a fair™election. . . .” _In addition, Section 2(a) of Article X of the Inter- national Constitution provides: 16 “Local Unions shall be required to enact their own © by-laws; provided, however, that such’ by-laws may ° not conflict with the International Constitution, fed- : eral, state or provincial laws, .. .” Section 1 of Article XX of the International tinnttte 7 ’ tion “Grounds for Charges”, reads in part a8 follows: “A member, Local Union, or other subordinate body and the officers thereof, . . . may be required to stand - trial and charged with any of the following offenses: (a) Violation of any specific _— of this Constitution.” ‘ Any member of the Union whe wished: to charge it with the ‘alleged violations referred to in paragraphs - 8(e), 8(d) and 9 of the Complaint, could have and in- deed: should have brought charges against the Union. and its officials for violation of those provisions of the Inter- national Constitution above set forth which require that . Local Unions providg@safeguards for a fair election.and that the By-Laws of any Local Union comply with the federal law. Section 3 of Article XX of the International Constitution permits any member to: bring charges: “Who May File Charges. A charge against a mem- _. ber, subordinate body or officer thereof may be filed hy any member of the International Union having knowledge of the facts alleged to constitute a viola- tion of this Constitution; any officer of a Local or . [fol,621] the International may file such charge upon © information furnished him by a member. A ¢harge involving breach of a subordinate body’s by-laws may only be filed by a member of such subordinate body or a General Officer of the International Union.” Sections 4 through 18 set forth, in graphic detail, the entire process by which the aggrieved member may make his protest heard. These sections contain the step-by-step grievance procedure from inception through trial, evi- dence and appeals. - - No member of the Union availed himself of this right. No member of the Union exhausted his internal remedies 17 . ie. ee with regard to the matters alleged in paragraphs 8(c),- 8(d) and 9 ofthe Complaint, and, as a consequence, it is respectfully submitted that plaintiff Secretary is without authority to bring an action seeking. relief predicated upon these matters. — ’ JAMES MARLEY ve Sworn to before me, | this 138th day of April, 1966. GERTRUDE F. LEVINE ‘Notary Public, State of New York | No. 31-2328700 * Qualified in New. York County ~ Commission Expires March 30, 1967. ‘sil 18 ; OPINION BY JUDGE McLEAN - [fol. 702] ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW. YORK. 66 Civ. 626 W. en WirTz, Semeters “ Labor, ' United States Department of Labor, PLAINTIFF -against- HOTEL, More. AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 6, DEFENDANT ' APPEARANCES: otto “s ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU United States Attorney for the | Southern District of. New York Attorney for Plaintiff United States Courthouse Foley Square, New York 10007 ARTHUR S. OLICK, Assistant: United States Attorney Of Counsel COHN AND ene Attorneys for Defendant | 717 Fifth Avenue — ne New York, N. Y. 10022 JEROME B. LURIE LEONARD LEIBOWITZ. Of Counsel [fol: 703] McLEAN, D. Z _ This is an action by the Becretary of Labor, pursuant to 29.U.S.C. § 482(b) for a judgment declaring an elec- .tion of officers of defendant union held on May 19, 1965 to be null and void. Defendant moves (1) to dismiss the action for failure to join the-union officers.as defendants, and (2) in the alternative, to strike paragraphs 8(c), 8(d) and 9 of the complaint. The ground of the first-motion-is that the officers elect- ed at the election in question are indispensable parties, because. their rights will be affected. by the determination . made in this action. It seems clear that the statute does not contemplate their joinder, for its provides that the action shall -be brought “against the labor organization: as an entity.” 29 U.S.C... § 482 (b). But defendant says that the statute deprives the union officers of due process of law and is therefore unconstitutional: ; This same contention, phrased in very much the same way, has recently ‘been rejected in. Wirtz v. Teamsters Union Local No. 73, 53 L.C. 11,288 (N.D. Ohio, E.D., . (fol. 704] May 11, 1966). The court’s opinion refers to two unreported decisions to the same effect, one of which is a decision by Judge Anderson in the District Court in- ’ Wirtz v. Local: 191, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Civ. No. 9776 (D. Conn. 1964), denying a motion by union officers for leave to intervene, in an action brought by the Secretary under this statute. - - The subject is thoroughly treated in Wirtz v. Teamsters Union Local No. 73, supra, and I. see no need to repeat here what was said there. The court® coriclusion seems to me to be correct: No case to the centrary has been - found. I -will follow the Local No. 73 decision. Defend- ant’s motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties is therefore denied. Defendant’s alternative motion raises a different ques- tion. The paragraphs of the complaint which defendant seeks to strike relate to alleged violations of law about which apparently no union member complained, either to the union or to the Secretary. The moving affidavit es- 20 tablishes, ‘without contradiction . ‘from, plaintiff, that the sole ground upon which any union member ‘protested to the union about the election related to Article IV, Section [fol. 705] 7A(2) of the union’s by-laws, which provides that to be eligible for nomination as an officer, a candi- date must be either a present or former member of the Executive Board or the Assembly, or a former member of the Shop Delegates’ Council, now defunct. The pro- testing members considered this by-law too restrictive. Concededly they ‘exhausted their remedies within. the - union, without success, as far as this objection was con- - cerned. Although the compiaint in the present action does “not specify the objection contained in the complaint of the union members to the Secretary, plaintiff does not contend that it was anything other than this same ob- jection to the by-law provision. In his complaint in this action, however, the Secretary attacks the election, not only upon this ground, but also upon additional grounds which apparently occurred. to him in the course of ‘his investigation of the union members’ complaint, i.e., that the union failed to give adequate ‘and timely notice of _ the composition of its election districts, that the members’ right to support and vote for the candidate of their choice was “subject to improper interference” and that certain [fol. 706] offices of the union have been filled “in a man- ner other thari by election.” This last allegation, it would seem, does not even relate to the election of May 19, 1965 which the Secretary seeks to overturn. Rather, it appears to be a complaint that there was no election at -all, as far as certain officers are concerned. 29 U.S.C. § 482(a) provides that: “(a) A member of a labor organization— (1) who has exhausted the remedies avail- able under the constitution and — of such organization and of any parent body .. may file a complaint with the Secretary . ore the. violation of any provision of section 481 of this title... .” Subsection (b) provides: A } : 21 “The Secretary: shall investigate such complaint and, if he finds ‘probable cause to believe that a vio- lation of. this subchapter has occurred and has not. been remedied, he shall . . .. bring a civil action... P to set aside the invalid election... .” Pertinent legislative history of this statute is reviewed in Wirtz v. Local Union, No. 125, International. Hod Car- riers’, Etc.,'231 F. Supp. 590 (N.D. Ohio, E.D. 1964). It indicates that in enacting this section, Congress had in (fol. 707] mind the desirability of preserving independent self-government of the union as far.as was compatible with the public interest in free and democratic union elec- tions. It intended that: the union should have an oppor- . tunity to -regulate: its ewn affairs before the Secretary eould ask a court to regulate its affairs for it. As the court said in Wirtz v. Local Union 169, International Hod - — Carriers’, Etc., 246 F. Supp. 741, 752 (D. Nev. 1965): “The act should be construed to mean that the - Secretary has, on complaint of a union member, the right to investigate all aspects of the ‘contested - elec- tion and to base a complaint to the Court.on every ‘issue which the defendant union had‘a fair opportu- nity to oénsider and resolve in connection with any member’s appeal to the General Executive Board of the union.” a. er? , No doubt it would be unreasonable, as the court .in Wirtz v. Local 169, supra, also recognized, to insist that the Secretary’s action should be limited to the particular ground asserted by the particular union member who com- plained to him. That member might be too inarticulate to express the complaints of his fellows. He might not even know of all of them. But it is not too strict to limit - the Secretary’s attack upon an election to those grounds [fol. 708] about which some member, not necessarily the one who eventually complained to the Secretary, has pre- viously complained to the union. If the Secretary is free to attack an election because of matters never brought ‘ to the attention of the union, and which the union never — . had: an opportunity to correct, as the Secretary seeks to do here, the congressional intent clearly manifest in this statute is frustrated. | . 22 The cases so hold. Wirtz v. Local Union 125, meni: z v. Local Union 169, supra; Wirtz v. Local Unions No. 406, 406-A, 406-B, I.U.0.E., 53 L.C. 911,297 (E.D.. La. May 19, 1966) ; Wirtz v. Local Unions No. 9, 9-A and 9-B, I. U.O.E., 51 L.C. $19,579 (D. Colo. 1965). See Wirtz v. Local 191, International: Brotherhood of” — Teamsters, etc., 321 F.2d 445, 448 (2d Cir. 1963). It, follows that graphs 8(e), 8(d) and 9 have no \. proper place in.this complaint. Defendant’s motion to | strike them is granted. Ses / So ordered. “ Dated: July 15, 1966 | . — , , EDWARD C. MCLEAN U. S. D: J. “ANSWER | [fol.709] “a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 ) 66 Civ. 626 ° ~7~ o W. WILLARD Wirz, Secretary of Labor, . United States Department of Labor, PLAINTIFF’ ~against- “et MOTEL. AND CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 6, DEFENDANT ? Defendant, by its attorneys, Cohn and Glickstein, for its Answer to the Complaint herein: : aa Admits the allegations contained in paragraph “5” except that it denies that no action has been taken by the General Executive Board with respect to the appeal lodged by the complaining union. members. ‘2. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph “6”, except that it denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that said members on or about September 8, 1965, filed a com- plaint with the plaintiff in accordance with Section 402 (a) of the said Act, 29 U.S.C. 482(a), alleging that the - defendant violated Section 401 of the. said Act, 29 U.S.C. .. - 481 in the conduct: of the said election of officers. [fol. 710] . . 3. Denies each and every allegation contained i in-para- graph “7”; except that it denies knowledge or infofmation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega- tion that the. plaintiff investigated said complaint. 4. Denies each and every allegation contaified 1 in para- graphs s6Q” and “10”. AS AND FOR A FIRST COMPLETE AND #4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ~ _5. The relat eligibility. requirements for nomination to candidacy for office in defendant-union are reasonable -in‘ that their purpose is to assure that a candidate for general office in the defendant-union, with a membership: in excess of 27,000, has certain minimum leadership _ ex- perience, and that ‘he has shown an interest in, and is familiar with, the Union, its affairs, policies, and at least - a Lesiaan of the membership. - . AS AND FOR A SECOND COMPLETE AND . AFFIRMATIVE ———— ee 6. Most.of the Union members who were declared in- - eligible to run for office pursuant to the eligibility re- quirements in question were members* of a group known as the Membership Party. ° (fol. 711] . 3 7. Some of the members met said requirements and were declared eligible to: run for office. Others were de-. clared ineligible to run for general office but were eligible to run for Integnational Convention. Delegate or Assembly Delegate. And,.of course, some wee declared eligible to run for either or both General Office and Delegate. 8. Those who were declared: eligible chose to run as part of the Membership Party ticket, ie., Row B, as op- posed to the Administration Slate, ‘i.e., “Row A. The voting membership of the Union’ was fully: aware of the existence of the Membership Party, its policies and proposals and the fact that said party was represented on — i Row B of the voting machines. : The results of the election were clear. . The Membership Party. and its candidates were overwhelmingly defeated, Thus, had those members who were declared ineligible for General Office been permitted to run, or had -those _ members who were declared: ineligible to run at all been permitted to do so, the outcome of the ‘election would have been unaffected by — presence on the ballot. > COHN AND GLICKSTEIN Attorneys for Defendant ‘ Office & P.O. Address - ' 717 Fifth Avenue NewYork, N. Y. 10022. * * * . @ o r . . 25 sae EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY - [fol. 9] °°." ee - Mr. Kushner: , Your Honor, may I inquire of Mr. — Lurie whether he will stipulate that Exhibits 1, 2, 3°and 4 comprise all the bylaws of. Local 6 which governed the local during the period December 1947 through -May 1965? : aa - Mr. Lurie: So stipulated. [fol 36] *** | | f Mr. Kushner: Your Honor, may, I inquire of Mr. Lurie whether he will agree that the sample ballots _ [Exhibits 31 through 31G] just igtroduced in, evidence accurately represent the ballots as’ they appeared on the voting machines in the 1965 election? es ; Mr. Lurie: Yes. core «. *- . * * [fol $9]. * * * —\ Mr. Kushner: I offer as Exhibit 35 a copy. of the membership roster of Local 6 as of September 30, 1964. . _. _Mr.:Kushner: Will Mr. Lurie also dgree“that the in- — _ ternational’s constitution just offered as Exhibit 36 was the constitution effectivé as of the date of the Local 6 election of May 19, 1965? ~ . Mr. Lurie: So stipulated. . . = = a * ~[fol. 48] * * * * ee Th. Kushner: Your Honor, as the last matter pre- liminary ‘tq_calling the plaintiff's first Witness, I would like to read “In- evidence a few of the answers to inter- rogatories given by the defendant to interrogatories pro- | pounded by plaintiff. e e . = Mr. Kushner: The answers~to these interrogatories _ were verified on January 13, 1967 by Miss Betty Bentz. Interrogatory 4-A:. “State the number of nth of defendant who were eligible to vote in the general election held by defendant on May 19, 1965. ad Co. The answer to Interrogaiory 4-A is: “97,954.” ° | faa te - (fol. 49] . Interrogatory 4-B: | je: “Identify precisely all sources and records used in pre- paring the answer ‘to Interrogatory 4-A.” | Does this list also show Local 6 members who were members of the 1956 assembly? A That’s correct. wt wee ae 31 Q 2 And of the 1959-assembly? A That’s correct. Q And of the 1962 assembly? A That’s correct. And again with the same proviso, that these persons still had to be members of Local 6 as of about a month x ago? A That’s correct. The Court: Well, if they had died or resigned or given ~ up their membership in the union and gone into some — other work,. the list wouldn’t show it? The Witness: That’s correct. The Court: And does that total 534?: The Witness: That’s correct. . | QQ Wait a moment before you answer. Does the total _ appear at the end? A Yes. It is 534. ee Mr. Kushner: I offer Exhibit 41 for identification in evidence. eine | [fol. 59] Mr. Lurie: No objection, your Honor. The Court: Without objection, it will be received. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 41 for identification received in evidence. ) Bs ‘Q ‘Mr. Smith, what sources did you use in preparing Exhibit 412 -A The results of the elections held—the reports of the Election and Objections Committee. We checked their names against a master group of cards of those people currently in the union and wherever we found . _ the name, we. pulled the card.’ Rae hang Q What reports of the Election and, Objections Com- mittee did you use as sources? A The report of the 1954 election, report of the 1956 election, 1959, 1962 elec- tions, and then the magazine or the newspaper edition of the 1951 election. i ; ee . Q Iskow you Exhibit 20 and ask you if that-is a copy of the report of the Election and Objections Committee that you used for 1954? A That’s correct, yes. Where do you find in that Exhibit 20 names of ‘[fol. 60] persons wha were elected to the.assembly? A. I . don’t find assembly as such, but execftivd board and dé-— partment committee membeys was a generaNerm that we used, that they were member’ of the assembly, on evi- dently it was not called the assembly at that time. | Q ds it correct that you used persons listed as execu-: tive board and department committee in the 1954 Election and Objections report, which is Exhibit 20, in preparing your Exhibit 41? A That’s correct, yes. : Q I show you Exhibit.21, and ask you if that.is the _ report of the Election and Objections Committee for 1956 — * which you used in preparing your list, which is Exhibit - 41? A. That’s correct, and the same error that I made before, calling them assembly, shows that they are execu , tive board and department committee. Q So that you used those listed as department com- mittee and ‘executive board in 1956 in preparing Exhibit 41? A That’s correct. - : Did anyone tell you. to .use those lists? A [fol. 61] Specifically, I don’t recall if anyone told me to, but I knew that that was a source of information that could be. uséd to determine this list. Q Did you check to see whether there, might be other sources for the members of the assembly in 1954 and 1956? A Yes. Q. How did you check? A When the issue came up, - I consulted with the president of the union, with the secre- tary-treasurer of. the union and asked for whatever sources might be available in order to get the information if - that was required. Q What did they tell you? A To utilize the reports, - to look in the newspaper, the publications, to see if -we ’ could find any minutes that might report certain things— almost all sources that might ed available. Q: -Did you also use .Exhibjts 22 and 23 in preparin the list which is in aaa s Exhibit 41? A Y ‘sir. Q And those are the Election and Obiections Com- (fol. 62] mittee reports for 1959 and 1962? A That's correct. Q Did you also use the issue of the. Hotel and Club Voice of Local 6 for May 5, 1951 (handing)? A _ Yes, I believe—yes. Q Did you use any issues of: :-the Hotel and Club’ Voice for 1956 in preparing ‘Exhibit 41?) A No, sir. coal 33 Q Did you use any issues of the Hotel and Club Voice | - for 1954 in preparing Exhibit 41?°.A No, sir. Q Before preparing Exhibit 41, did you check with anyone to see if the department committees and the ex- ecutive boards in 1954, 1956 were the same-as the as- semblies in those years? A _ I don’t recall doing such a | thing. \It was an assumption on my part that they were, based upon the knowledge that I have. — Q Has your knowledge changed since you prepared the list, which is Exhibit 41? A No.” - ae Mr. Lurie: If your Honor please, I call your attention to’ the fact that in evidence is the 1951 by-laws of the uniori, which. provides, in the first place, that the mgm- (fol. 63] bers of the various department boards shall be members of the dssembly. That is on page 7, Section 13. Under any circumstances, members of the executive board would be eligiblé under 7(a) (2). This list can only con- tain eligibles and indeed if Mr..Smith didn’t include the convention delegates who were elected in 1954 and 1956, — the list is not accurate in that it is not complete and is . smaller than it should be and not larger than it should be. The Court: Go ahead, Mr. Kushner. | By Mr. Kushner: Q Do you,find the name Lubos Pavlista listed on Ex- ‘hibit. 41? A No, I do not.._ legs Q Should Mr. Pavlista’s name be listed thereon? A Yes, it should have. - Q What is the reason for that? Mr. Lurie: Which is 41? . an The Court: °41 is the list which Mr. Smith prepared about a month ago, totaling 534 names. | A It should have been on, yes. a Q What is the reason for that? A The clerk that was :assigned evidently missed the card or couldn’t .find [fol. 64] the card in the file at the particular time they worked on it. a ‘ : -Q I didn’t mean that. I meant for what reason should Mr. Pavlista be listed on.that list? A He was an officer _. in the period; that would show his name should be on it. _. He was an officer of the union. : " - = ra ' ——— se 34 . o Q What office? A at of a business ‘agent, Q Do you know during, what period he held that office? A _ I believe it was since—no, maybe not—I don’t’ recall. He. may not have to be on this list. If this list is as of the ’62 group, I don’t know if he became an | officer prior to ’62 or immediately thereafter. I’m. not sure. If he was an officer prior to 1962, he should have been on the list; if he was not, then he shouldn't have been.. Q Is it accurate to state that you took the names of , persons who were listed as officers from. the various Elec- tion and Objections Committee reports and you placed them on this list, which is Exhibit 41? A That is ‘eorrect. Q And they compose part of the list? A ‘That's correct. (fol. 65 | - a The Court: Well, wait. Exhibit 41 purports to be a list of what? ti 3 ne: zis £ The Witness: Of-the assembly members—of those eligible to run for paid -office from 1951 through the 1962 election—that had served on a body which would have made them eligible under the rules and the bylaws. - The Court: So that would be eithér the assembly or' - the executive board or the old shop delegate’s council? The Witness: No, I don’t believe it includes the shop _ delegate’s council. The Court: But it includes—, . Ed. The Witness:. The assemblies. ‘ “The Court: Or the executive boards? . The Witness: Yes.. The Court: But, Mr. Smith, a business agent isn’t a member of the assembly, i is he? The Witness: Yes,-he is, by virtue of his office. The Court: Yes, you are right, I see it here. The members of the administrative board and the busi- ness. agents of the union pphall automatically be members {fol. 661 of the: assembly" The Witness: Thai’s right. The Court: Go ahead. ris By Mr. Kushner: ° Q This, Exhibit 41 also lists members of the depart- ment, committees for 1954 and 1956? A Yes, it does. | Does it list members of the department committees for 1951? A If I might look at the ’51 exhibit amy see how it was run. — Q Please do. What exhibit number are you referring to? A This is Exhibit 24, which shows the results of the convention delegates, and my determination is that the .’ department committees as such are not listed as ‘such as =the delegates by department but not the department. committee as we know it today. Q°> That is for the year 19512 A Yes, sir. .Q Are department committees listed for 1959 or 1962 in Exhibit 41? A In 1959 they are not Aisted individ- ually. However, department committees come put of the [fol. 67] assembly, which I know—what was the other year? . : -Q 1962. A 1962, it is the same type of ahswer, that they are not listed as department committee but the de- _ partment committee is elected from the assembly. % -Q Did you prepare Exhibit’ 42 for identification | (handing)? A .Yes, sir... . me Q When? A I believe this was done in the summer at the initial request of the government, a year or SO ago. q| Q Summer of 1965? A__ I believe that’s correct. Q Did anyone: help you in preparing. it} A Yes, there was a-staff of clerks. ) | , Q How did they go about and how a you go about “preparing Exhibit 42 for identification? /A We gook the back-issues of the publication Voice and wherever men- fish was made in any of the articles stating that someone was a shop chairman or an executive board member or a _ shop delegate, we picked up their name and prepared this . listing from it, ae Q. What period does. Exhibit .42 for identification (fol. 68]. cover? A .This lodks like~ that it represents from December of 1940: through October of 1947. You have also given me Exhibit 43, which includes -part of the period gs named. = ; 36 ‘eC apee pet : & . i ? - Q Was Exhibit 43 for identification prepared in the . same way as Exhibit onl for identification? A Yes, it, was. Q The two exhibits together show what peeked of time? A PBecember of 1940 through October of 1947. Q Did you read the Hotel and Club Voices yourself ‘in preparing these lists? A ‘ may have done an issue or two, yés, sir. Q. Who did the others? A ‘We had a couple of clerks from the office. We hired someone for a | period of time. The educational director. helped. Q Anyone else? A. ‘Some officers may have hetnied. Q Anyone besides the ones you just mentioned? ~ e To the best of my knowledge, that’s it. Q \ Were any newspaper employees enlisted — A (fol. 69] That is the one I said we hired. This was dur- ing the newspaper strike and we needed additional help in ordér to do this large job and we hired a girl, a re- porter or a newspaper worker, to work a short period of time in doing this job, yes, sir. Q Do you know how long it took to prepare these. two . lists? A , It took quite some time. ew how long, I don’t know. . \ e * * . _ Q Did you give instructions to the persons who were culling the names; from the newspapers which appear on these lists as to' what they were to do? A In some © cases, yes. What were your instructions?. A They were to [fol. 70] read the articles in the newspapers, in the. union newspapers, and wherever mention was made that some- one was elected a delegate or a story: might “have con- cerned a shop chairman :or someone’ made a trip—no matter what the story was, if it made reference.to the fact that they were. or in the shop or held a dele- - gated position in the shop? they, were to witte the name down. Q Did’ you tell them that if somebody was .listed as ' delegate Mary Doe, went to the hospital yesterday, then * Mary Doe’s name ‘would be listed?. A ‘That's correct, yes. That is an example. | é * ‘~ The Court: And these seve foo Q Prior to the time that these two lists, Exhibits 42 and 43 for identification wére prepared, did you have any _ . lists showing shop delegates of Local 6? A No.. Mr. Kushner: I offer Exhibits 42 and 48 for identi- . . fication in evidence. ; Mr. Lurie: No“ objection, with the—wnderstanding, your Honor, that we will introduce evidence which will indicate that these lists are incomplete. “The Court: Without objection, it will be received. 7 [fol. 71] | ‘> Belin (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 42 and 43. for identification re- ceived in evidence.) . 3 Mr. Kushner: May I have these marked for identi- fication. Your Honor, they are all nomination, acceptance, certificates and*it might be best to mark the folder, if that is agreeable to Mr. Lurie. ’ The Court: If you are going to offer them and Mr. Lurie is not going to object, maybe he could take a look at them now and we could just mark them. .Mr. Kushner: Yes, sir. (Documents handed to Mr. Lurie.) (Pause.) oe Mr. Lurie: I have.no objection, your Honor. _— The Court: All right, then dictate into the record _ what these are and we will ask the clerk to mark them. Mr. Kushner: These are the fiomination acceptance . certificates of those persons in Local 6 who ran or sought’ — run for the offices of vice president, business agent or those of general officer in the May 19, 1965 election. There is only one missing person here and I could not. locate that (fol. 72] certificate. I assume Mr. Lurie also could not. ral certificates are included | in one folder? | 3 , x» Mr. Kushner: Yes, your Honor, © — . The Court: We will mark the folder containing those certificates as Exhibit 44. : ns (Plaintiff's Exhibit 44°received in evidence.) 7 mR fe 38 . . ‘ bd By Mr. Kushner: Q Mr. Smith, have you seen the certificates in Exhibit | 44 before? - A Yes, I have. Q You will note that there is a blank in each certifi- cate for dues standing. A Yes. — _ Q. Did you check dues standing? A Yes, I did. ‘Q When did you receive these. certificates to check ' dues standing? A Either the night of the nominations meeting or the very next day, or possibly a day after that. Q Who gave the certificates to you? A _ I either got _ if from the secretary-treasurer’s office or from the Elec- [fol 73] tion & Objections Committee, I don’t recall which. Q Can you place a date when you say the night of the nomination ofthe very next day? A Nominations are usually held about two weeks prior to the election, so it may have been in the early part of. May, 1965. ’ (fol. 74] Q How did you check dues standing? A Well, after receiving the nomination certificates, we checked them against their dues record cards in the union. And we checked them, 4spending upon the office determining how: far we should check. In the case of an officer nominee, we checked two years prior to the nomination. In the case of an assembly dele- gate, we checked oné year. prior. Q Did you also check eligibility by reason af present or prior service in the assembly, exectitive board or shop delegate’s council? A If the position was that which re- quired that requirment, in most cases, we did, yes. + What position required that . requirement? That of paid office: vice president, poenyaunn, business ~ agent, recording secretary. 3 The four general offices, the vice presidents. the business agents, is that correct? A. That’s correct. ‘Q How did you, go about checking this prior service requirement? A . Usually checking it against the prior [fol..75] assembly election results. If one served on the ~ assembly in the prior election, that made them eligible; or .- . based upon my own personal knowledge of some people who I know. That would be the most common way that I have done it, yes. : | 39 Q When you referred to the prior election, did you refer to the 1962 one? A That is correct, yes. «=. If someone was notflisted in the 1962 assembly, did . ~ you check further? A I don’t recall if I did or if I _ didn’t, but I may have. Q ‘Is it corivct to state that you considered that all incumbent officers were automatically eligible as far as the prior office holding requirement went? A That’s correct, yes, sir. . os -Q So that therg was no need to check the incumbents - in this respect? A. That’s correct. , | y -Q Allright. Did you check whether any of the persons running in opposition to the incumbents-had served in the _ shop. delegate’s council? ,A No, I did not. (fol. 76] Q Did you check whether any of those persons run- ning in opposition had served in the 1959 assembly?. A I don’t Believe I did. I may have. I’m not sure. I may have to verify if I thought someone did. ae TH - *** > The Court: Let’s ga on with the questioning. But tell me, before we do that, somebody: I know what general officers are. But is there anything in the bylaws that defines what an officer is?s | Mr, Lurie:’ No, your Honor. There is not. The Court: I take it that the practical interpretation [fol:-78] is that business agents are officers? Mr. Lurie: ‘That is correct. a The Court: Qf course, a vice president, _the word itself would suggest that a vice president is an officer, and by custom, at least, business agent has been inte preted to be.an officer? | Mr. Lurie: Yes, I would say that is so. . -.The- Court: Mr. Smith, as I understand it, then, ‘the eligibility qualification of ‘past office holding applies to the - four general offices, the vice presidents and the business agents? “The Witness: That’s correct, your Honor. Mr. Lurie: If your Honor please, business agents, regardless of whether or not ‘they should be deemed offi- cers, business agents are specifically made members . of the assembly by the bylaws. The. Court: Yes. But the qualification requirement doesn’t apply to members of the assembly, does it? Mr. Lurie: No, no. But I mean they were members of the assembly by dint of being business agents whether one considered them officers or not. The Gourt: That fact wouldn’t nadie applicable to. them the qualification requirement. (fol. 79] Mr. Lurie: I’m sorry, I don’t uriderstand, The Court: Weil, a business agent can’t be elected unless he’s been a member of the assembly or the executive © ‘board or has served for’ at least one term on the executive board, the assembly or the old shop delegate’s council. Mr. Lurie: That is correct. The Court: The reason that he is subject to those - qualification requirements is that he is considered to be an officer, not that he is considered to be a member of the assembly. , Mr. Lurie: Absolutely. .The Court I think we understand each other. Go ahead, Mr. Kushner. Mr, Kushner: Your Honor, I think ,Mr, Lurie may agree. with me that the term. “officer” in this bylaw, ‘which requires prior service, has beeri construed. by the’ union to mean paid officer and since the vice. presidents and general officers and business agents are all ‘paid and full time, they are officers. Is. that correct? Mr. Lurie: There i is no objection, | _ The Court: Yes, “ (fol. 80] — : os ? » By Mr. Kushner: * © Q Mr. Smith, there are notations at the bottom of * some of these nomination acceptance certificatés in Ex- hibit .44. For example; at the bottom of one Kenneth Davis’ certificate ‘there appears “no record of a. membership.” Is that natation in your’ handwritting? A Yes, it is. 41 Q Is is correct that if you found no record of assembly membership either in the 1962 assembly list or as far as your memory went, you noted “no record of assembly - membership” at the bottom of a certificate? A That’s ’ correct. a | _Q When did you surrender these certificates and to whom after you had checked eligibility? A As soon as they were checked for eligibility, which was immediately after the n mination meetings, the’ folders with all the acceptance certificates were turned over either to, the sec- retary-treasurer to give to the Election & Objections Com- mittee or directly to the Election & Objections Committee. - Do you recall to whom? A_ Usually the chairman» (fol. 81] of the Election & Objections ommittee or Mr. Marley, who was secretary-treasurer. | Q You don’t recall whether you gave it to Mr. Marley or to Mr. Cohn?. A No, I don’t. ~The Court: Mr. Cohn is the ch. irman of the com- The Witness: That’s correct. | eu The Court: And Mr. Marley is the secretary- treasurer? wee eee | as The Witness: Was the secretary-treasurer at the . time. ie eek The Court:. Was. one Q Prior to the 1965 election of Local 6, in other words, in other elections, did you also check the eligibility of nominees for office? : : Mr. Lurie: Objection. The Court: Read the question. . (Question read.) The Court: I will take_it. Overruled. A In the same manner as was done in the 1965 election, yes. Q’ So that, for example, ig the 1962 election, how would you have checked this prior -service requirement? (fol. 82] A. -By checking a prior election return, result. Q And noting at the bottom of the nomination accept- ance certificate if that prior election result didn’t show assembly membership and if your memory didn’t indicate such membership? A _ Yes, sir. a ' 42 Q In how ° many prior elections did you check eligibil- | ity? A_ I believe the first one I was involved in in that capacity was the 1954 election. Q Sothat— A From19540n . |. Q So that you checked eligibility in the 1954 ‘aie in the 1954 election; is that correct? A That’s correct. Q In the 1959 election? A That’s correct. Q And in the 1962 election and in the 1965 election? A -That’s correct. Q In any of these elections, from 1954, 1956, 1959 and _ 1962, do you recall whether anyone nominated for office (fol. 834 was ruled eligible solely because he ned ‘been a “member of the shop delegates council? - * = ‘* fol: 84) wd: The .Court: Technically, the form of the —- is bad. Was it ruled that he satisfied the office holding qualification because he had held office in the shop dele- gates council? | Mr. Kushner: I will reframe the question. na The Court: -Do you remember whether there was any such incident, Mr. Smith? A I believe there was one. I may have this thing turned around in my mind, but I recall an incident one time - [fol. 85] where'a nominee produced a shop delegate’s certificate as showing that he had been’ a member of the . shop delegates: council’ and was declared eligible to run for'an office. . Q Do you recall the year? i} may have been, 1954 or 19—I don’t recall the year. ‘It was a couple of elections back, at least. . @ Do you recall any other instances? A No, I don’t. ‘The Court: Mr. Smith; how does it- happen that there : is an election in 1956? I would have thought ’51, ’54, ’57. The Witness: Well, we used.to have it every two years and then in one of “the changes in the bylaws, it was changed to a three-year term. So it went from-’54 to 06, and then from *56"to 759. : The Court: It went from ’51 to ’54? e . 7 43 % . The Witness: That’s right.. The ’51 period, your Hon- or, the union was under a trusteeship in the period there and that may have turned the timetable around as far as elections go. - : : * * : - * [fol. 87]. > ee | A The Exhibit 45 is atfendance record sheets of the - assembly delegates elected in the 1962 election. . Q For what period do these sheets cover attendance? A This runs from June 21, 1962, through’ April 6, 1965. 2 , SS : Q Does it record attendance at all assembly meetings held during that period? A Kt does.. | Q How did you prepare these records? A Assembly delegates receive a supper. remuneration and they’re paid by check. Those checks that remain at the endwof_a_day assumtedly didn’t attend the assembly meeting and they . would be deemed absent, uniess they were excused, wheré I would get special notice. All those that picked up their | supper remuneration were deemed as present. . -Q So your assumption was that if someone didn’t pick up his check at a particular meeting he was absent? .A Yes, sir. [fol. 88] * * * ~ Q Mr. Smith, I was asking you about various nota- - tions-which appear. On the first page of this exhibit for identification, which is 45, the name Bardeguez is . stricken. Do you know the reason? A Yes. He was a member of the assembly and sometime during that period | he was appointed or—yes, appointed a business agent and [fol. 89] this attendance sheet carried only those that were members of the assembly other than the officers. Q Exhibit 45 does not record attendance by: the paid officers at assembly sessions? A That’s right. : Q_ Right. * pert se Soe Now, there is‘a notation D. C. next to ‘a number of | names. What does that notation mean? A _ It means. that they were elected from the assembly to be representa- — tives on the department committees. | “ 44 . Q And the notation E. B. appears next to other names. What does that notation mean? A It would be those assembly members elected by—from the assembly to be . representatives on the executive board. Q Next to the name of each person his hotel is listed, is that correct? A That’s correct. The shop of employ- ment. Q -Also. if there i is an “A” next to s a given “meeting and ; a person’s name, that means absent? A That’s correct. Q Anda check means present? A That’s correct. 5 * * * * [fol.93] ** * | Cross-examination by. Mr. Lurie: Q Mr. ‘Smith, earlier in your testimony you stated that: you checked the assembly attendance by: checking the number of checks that were to be paid to the assembly ~ members which remained in your possession, is that right? A That’s correct. --Q How much did the assembiy members get paid for ' attending assembly meetings? A For the night sessions, there was $5 supper remuneration. ' Q And for the all-day sessions, when held? A. $20. Q In making up your list, which is now Plaintiff’s Exhibit 41 in evidence, of assembly members eligible to run for office at the time of the 1965 election, you said that you made it up from, among other things, the 1954. and the 1956 reports of the election and objections com- (fol. 94] mittee,” is that right? A That’s correct. - Q Actually, in 1954 and in 1956 there were delegates - . elected to a convention, were there not? A.. es, there were. Q “Under the bylaws were those delegates ultimately assembly members? A _ Yes, they were. Q Did you include those two lists in computing your - 543? Are those people included on Exhibit 41? A No, they are not. : “i -Q So that those people would he addftional ansembly members who would be — for office? A That’s cor- rect. o L * 45 Q That is, those who were not subsequently elected? ‘ A That’s correct. Q At a future date to the assembly and therefore would be 6n this.list, is that right? A That’s correct. Q You stated that you had the ngmination slips some- time early in May of 1965. Have you had occasion to [fol. 95] think about that? . A “Yes. It was earlier than that. In recollection, it probably was in April sometime, - ecause the nominations were held in April. . * 7 * Mr. Smith, I show you a document marked Defend- ant’s Exhibit A for identification and ask you if you pre- pared that list. A I did. Q When did you prepare it? A Oh, possibly a couple (fol. 96] of months ago, or.a month or more. . Q . What does that list consist of? A This list con- sists of all names that were culled from the union’s publi- cation showing that they weré either shop delegates or executive board .or department committee members and eligible to run—and are ‘still currently in good standing in the union and eligible, at least for that qualification, to run for paid office. We also used the reports of the | Election: & Objections Committee to pull these names. Q Did you use any other sources that you cari) mem- ber offhand? A Yes. We had found an old shbp dele- gates file, g-metal file, that contained 8 x-5 cards, and we used those cards to check names and we got some names out of that. ae age _Q Are any of the names on this list also includéd on ~ the list which is Plaintiff’s Exhibit “41 in evidence? A Yes. _ Q They are included? A Yes, these names are in- cluded. a) ee ga Q So that this list will also include all of those? [fol. 97] A That’s correct. SAG Q How many names, in total, are on that list? »A 1,855. - 3 LI. | nae Does that list also include individuals who were elected to the 1965 assembly? A Yes, it does include some of them. 46 : ce ng Q How many of those are additional names? A _ I believe there are about 130, or possibly a little more, that are elected for the first time in the assembly that appear - here. Q So that those eeteie who are elected for the first time would nof have been eligible to run for paid office in © 1965 by virtue of iti members of the: assembly? - A That’s correct. The Court: So you get a net figure by — them from the total? ». 2 _ Mr. Lurie: is right, your Honor. What would you get roughly as a net figure? A Oh, about 1720, or thereabouts. _ Mr. Kushner: I move to strike all previous testimony [fol. 98] of Mr. Smith, your Honor, which gave numbers ~ _of members. I expected that this exhibit for identification _ would be offered in eyidence ‘and that I would have a full opportunity for voir dire. In view of what has transpired _ here, it appears he is just reading off numbers from a list - which may never be entered in evidence. Mr. Lurie: I offer it in evidence. The Court: I overrule the objection. Mr. Kushner: May I examine on voir dire, your Honor? | _The Court: Yes. Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Kushner: a * * .- * - [fol. 101] ** * . Q Is it also correct that all the names appearing on Exhibit 41 also appear in Exhibit A for identification? A That’s correct. Q “Have you any work sheet showing,. where these names on Exhibit A for identification were culled? A Work sheets? The work sheets that were supplied origin- . | ally to the government, that were culled from the maga- zine and the newspaper, copies of the Election & Objec- tions Committee reports for 1954, 1956,°’59, ’62, the 1951 election results—I don’t know what the exhibit number is—that was the source of getting all these names.. ! : PS otk Sa es ee Q Any other sources? A We had an old file, metal - _[fol. 102] file, a 3 x 5 file that was located’ sometime ago, that we checked these cards against the roster or list of names we had of the members of the union. -Q Do you know how many names you got from that eard file? A No, I do not. — 2 ine Q Do you have that card file with you? A I believe you have that file. / ree You are referring now to what you brought with yow to your deposition in my office? A That's correct. Q And you culled names from that card file? .A That’s correct. ~. Pains Q Did you cull names from any other sources than ite those you just mentioned? A_ I believe we also had min- utes of the old shop delegates council. I believe there - were two sets of minutes. I don’t recall whether we used any of. the mames in that listing or not, but it was a Be Be” odes of names, yes. ae _Q. Any other’ sources? A No, other than thé news- " papers, the union publications, the card file, and the Elec- | (fol. 103] tion & Objections Committee reports, I don’t believe there was anything. oer , Q What newspapers did you go through? A The Hotel and Club Voice. att Q For what periods? A We started in 1940 through 1951, I believe: as | * * * * * [fol. 104] * * * ~Q So then. in preparing Defendant’s Exhibit A- for identification you took the names which appeared on Ex- hibits 42 and 43? A That’s correct. | Q And then you didn’t have to go through newspapers again for 1940 to 1947, is that right, in preparing De- fendant’s Exhibit A for identification? A No. We used this as the source (indicating), which was from the: news- paper. | ; ee Q “This” meaning Exhibits 42 and 43? . A: Correct. What period did you go through newspapers for? A From 1940 through 1951. ; ~ . es ae ee ae Q Mr. Smith, let’s get this straight: Tell. me again, what did you do.in compiling Defendant’s Exhibit A for identification? A We culled the newspapers, the union publications, we had a 3 x 5 card file of the old shop del- - egates. coma we used the\reports of the Election: .& [fol. 105] QGbjections Committée for the elections in: the years 1954 through the election of 1965.. I think that’s about it. 5s ot Q Who helped you in this? A’ Various office staff _ people in the office, the union. ‘Q Do you know how many names on Defendant’s’ . Exhibit A for identification were obtained from Exhibits. 42 and 43? A _ No, I do not. Q Do-you know how many names on - Defendant’s Ex- © ~ hibit A for identification were obtained from Exhibit 41? A There are 543 names here. Q So that all 543 would also appear in Defendant’s Exhibit A for identification? A That’s correct. Q _ Do you know how many names on Defendant’s Ex- hibit A for identification were obtained from the’ metal cabinet. file you described? A _ I do not. - Do you know how many names on Defendant’s Ex- hibit A for identification were obtained from the two shop delegates’ file folders as referred to? A I do _nhewspapers for. 1949? A I don’t. - (fol. 106] not. Q .Do you know how many names on Defendani’s Ex- hibit A for identification were obtained from the Local 6 newspapers: for 1948? A _ For the year 1948? Yes. A I do not know. | Q Do you know how many names on Defendant’s Ex- hibit A for identification were obtained from the Local 6. ~~ [ fol. 107 as Q. Do you know if you examined the Local 6 news- - papers for 1949 to obtain names for Defendant’s Exhibit “a. A for identification? A Yes, we did. you also examine Local 6 newspapers for. 1950? ‘A Yes, Q To obtain names for Defendant’s Exhibit A ‘for identification? A Yes. ; oe | | 7 ¥. . el’ | : 3 49 - Q Do you know how many names you obtained from the 1950 newspapers? A_ I don’t. rs ) z _Q Did you'examine the Local*6 newspapers for 1951 to obtain names for Defendant’s Exhibit A’ for identi-. fication? .A We did, yes. ane Q Do you know how many names youobtained from - the 1951 newspapers? A Ldon't. | a “@.Do you have any work sheets indicating break downs? A As far as counts for the individual years or - where the particular greuping came from, I don’t. Other . [fol. 108] than the 543 names that are here. f — Q_ Which is Exhibit 41 for identification—Exhibit 41, “excuse me. Cee. Mr. Kushner: Your Honor, I object to the intro- duction.of Exhibit A for identification ia evidence. It is compiled from sources which haven’t been introduced -. into evidence. There is no way ‘of determining, from what Mr. Smith testifies, just what the breakdown is from each source. : : : The Court: I will admit it. I will overrule the ob- jection. If you want the underlying material to be. made available to you or your associates.or colleagues or as- ° “sistants, I will order that to be done. . © tt * [fei. 138) * °°" j7 JAMES MARLEY * * *.- : . -— fol. 123 ‘ eg ae eee > Direct Examination * * *: Q Mr. rley, are you president of Local 6? A I am. t are... Q Howl of 1965. ; . | ‘ ‘Q Have you held any other offices.in Local 6? A I have. ’ = ‘Q All five renin a A ° Yes, we é‘have none in: ‘Staten Island. The Court: Excuye me Mr. ‘Marley, tell me, hesnuie I don’t know very about these things, what is a - ‘ delegate? — | ; The Witness: A delegate? The Court: | Yes. The Witness: A delegate— — [fol. 127] The Court: You said you were the delegate. & " . . ‘ > “ - r 51 The Witness: Yes. Well, a delegate in our union we use the term delegate, in ‘other unions some people . use shop steward.: ‘ a - The Court: Oh, yes, I understand. The Witness: A delegate’is one in. our union who is employed in the shop. He is usually elected by the members of his department and. it is his job “to work with the business agent in the patticular shop to bring . attention of the business agent’s to grievances and, in other words, to seé that the members come to meetings . and -keep them informed of what is happening in the union. : : . The Court: He is sort of the active leader of the mem- bers in the shop he works? ~ | The Witness: That is correct, your Honor. In the particular unit in which he is employed. | The Court: All right. Thank you. . _ Q What trades. are covered in Local 6? A All of the trades having to do with the feeding of people in din- * jing rooms. For instance, you would have captains, wait- _ supervisory capacities.. . érs, waitresses, hostesses, busKoys, anything in the dining [fol..128] room with the exception of head waiters, who are in.g supervisory capacity. In the kitchen, it would cover, again with the exception e executive chef, it would cover all of the cookirfg ‘ the chefs, the cooks, dishwashers, stewards, glass: of _ And the housekeeping it would cover, again with the exceptibn of the executives, chambermaids, bath maids, housemen and any other people that might be in the house- keeping department. - , ee Sue In the bar, it covers bartenders, bar boys. Did I give you all of the departments? The banquet department, which is. actually, part of the dining but _ covers all of the people in the banquet department, again with the. exception of the head waiter and some Of the . Mr: Lurie: » How about in the club? ~ , 4 _ The Witness: In the-cluk department, thé private membership clubs, it covers all departments I have men-. tioned in the private membership club and covers spme . other departments that I have not mentioned. in the . - 52 (fol. 129] hdtel. For instance, we take in categories in _the clubs that we would not have i in the hotels that would belong to another union. Q Did you mention housekeeping? A I did mention housekeeping, yes, sir. Q You mentioned bar? A Es mentioned bar, That one-I would never forget. 3 Q- And Local 6 has jurisdiction over ‘all these trades if they are situated in hotels or motels or clubs within the City. of: New. York? A That is correct, sir. The Court: Private clubs, you take in more cate- gories than in hotels? _ .The Witness: Yes, sir. Because a private club con- tracts are with Local 6, not with the New York Hotel Trades Council. — The Court: You take in telephone operators? The Witness: We would take in telephone oe elevator operators and so forth, right. The Court: I see, ; What is the function of a department delegate in [fol. 130] Local 6? A Of a department delegate? Q Yes. A The function of a deparement delegate is after having-been elected by the people within his depart- meft or the unit of his department, is to take up with the business agent grievances that may exist with the head of his: department, to make sure that the contract is carried _ out and is not violated: If{t is violated; to make sure that it is reported to the union... In addition to this, he has functions outside of*this and outside of his shop. He is involved in meetings of his particular unit, he is involved in meetings of his particu- lar hotel, he is involved in meetings of his particular craft, he is involved in meetings of. his district, and he is also involved in a great many of the things in the day-to-day life of.the union, joining in delegations for legislation or helping out in the community: projects, and this, in es- sence, is a few: of the duties of a delegate in the depart- ment. - The Court: He is not a paid officer, though? {fol. 131] The Witness:- No, your Honor, he is not paid. i i ae The Court: And therefore he is working at a job from day-to-day? NO acs The Witness; Yes, sir, yes, your Honor. The Court: In a hotel? . ee 5 The Witness: Yes, he is unpaid. a Q . How are department delegates chosen in Local 6? A’ Department delegates are chosen in Local 6 at. a meet- ing of their department or the unit of that department. _ Q You- would say that they were chosen by the rep- resentative units? A Units? | et — Yes. Can you give some examples of what a unit © * might be? A Well, you might. have—well, take a hotel that has four dinjng rooms. All of the people in that—in 4 those dining rooms are members of Local 6. All are mem- Be: bers of the dining room department. But since there are ° four-dining rooms, sometimes working’ on different shifts, it is obvious that one delegate for that dining room de- partment couldn’t handle it. Therefore; within the speci- (fol. 132] fied unit in this particular room, you would havea delegate. In another room you would have a dele- | - gate. Both are dining room delegates but each is a Unit -for each individual room. ) — r I hope I am making: myself clear, sir. If I am not, let me know. | me Q I certainly think you are. A. Thank you. . Q Each dining room would choose its own delegate. under the example you gave? A Right. | “The Court: Each dining room in those examples would be a shop? — } The Witness: That’s correct. The Court: The shop delegate? The .Witness:, That’s right. omc. : Mr. Lurie: If your Honor please, each shift, actually, - in many instances of each dining room. - | ae The Court: You mean there might be— The Witness: -There might be— The Court: “—two shop delegates for the same physig¢al -dining room?. ee | The Witness: Right; because the spread may run right (fol. 183] through breakfast, through supper. Tlie Court: Yes.: . oe Weipwuain teal ni ee Reine me . a RI A aa anita MOS Lg Wa Nn ‘ s - 2 5 eee ee ae Q Can you go from the department delegate and de- scribe briefly the structural ‘setup of Local 6, the political jl structure: I assume that the department delegate is the é basic unit, is that vight? ‘A I would say so, yes. DP a The shop’ delegate. -Please go ahead and describe briefly the rest of the structure: -A: Going up the ladder? Q :Yes, sit. A Well, you would have first of all the . _ delegate. You would then have—are. you talking. now ‘ e -& within the shop. or. within the union as a whole? - ; eo * Q Within-the union as a whole going up from the shop aie | delegate. A It goes up from the shop delegate’ through fe | the’ district ‘council— if - “Mr. Lurie: If your Honor please, I think it Would be .. ‘better if Mr. Marley understeod. I think Mr.: Kushner . | ‘ wants a complete description both in the shop and. up a through the union. ~ A The Court: I don’t know, Mr. Kushner, you are do- ing the examining. Do. you want to accept ‘the amend {fol. 134]. ment? '@ Mr. Kushner: Your Honor, .I_ will accept it. - - The-Court:~ All ‘right. -Mr. Kushner: With no further amendment. ‘Can you - go ahead on that basis? | : % . The Witness: No, I don’t understand. ¢ - The Court: All right. . Mr. Lurie: Let me make clear: There is a shop dele- . gate. Now, in-the shop there is organization before you get out of. the shop itself. - ca. The Witness: This is the question. ‘T understand you, -— “yes. 2 In the shop, there is a delegate unless—and let’s for ‘simplicity say there is a delegate in each unit of a de- ft partment. ' He operates within that unit for dining room. ‘ He will take up dining room problems’ within his. own ’ dining room. The other delegate in another dining room. will take up problems there. However, from this you will then have a group of dining room delegates who may - meet in the shop to take up general.dining-room problems. - In addition to this, you then have all of the other dele- gates in the housekeeping department, in the bar de- [fol. 185] partment. There you have a shop gommittee. © ° / . A te vouemaar tenes © Oe A EN Sd Baw babe 4 dine meee alla =RGepeRer se UN. . ae é 55 This is composea vf the delegates, all of the delegates of ‘the various crafts, with a shop chairmap who deals with —whick deals with all of the overall problems in the: hotel. For instance,: you may have a problem affecting only the dining room that could be settled at the head waiter level by the dining room delegate and his business‘ agent. But also you may have a problem that will af- | t. fect every worker in the hotel, so you would come through the delegates of the dining room. department, who in conjunction with all of the other delegates. would fornt the shop committee, and with a shop chairman would take it up with top management along with their union _ representative. - R : That’s the setup in the shop. , = fe [fol. 186] oS me? Q Who chooses the shop chairman? A_ The delegates. Q .All right, please go ahead.. A This 'is within the shop. Now I suppose you want me ta =, union? Q. Yes. A All of these delegates Would be members of the district council and they would’ serve in that. dis- trizt council. along with members of the assembly from that particular district, and this would be the district. _ setup.: a | eee : The Court: What is the district, Mr. Marley? .Is, that each borough of Manhattan? - : : The Witness: No, sir. That is each geographical. dis- - trict as set up by the union, which is changed from’ time to time, and usually includes a group of hotels in that” district, because of geography, although that is not: always possible. enon ." In the district councils they meet and there the officers of that district who. are elected by the members, the business agent of that district, the vice-president of that district, who are elected by the members, conduct the. distnict council meeting and the reason for having district ‘(fol. 387] councils is to give, first of all, the: members within that we 0 an opportunity to have a knowledge of what is happening in other -hotels within their district ° and also to be able’ to get up and question their officers, since one officer in one hotel might be doing a good job and another officer in anothed hotel in that district, his \ ° 5 + 2 2 - , . SL eS ee RTA OAR DRONA Se: De 6 iar al HR aR RAG EEE ATO BE LTC A aa aN “eae aI ei ae eA Pe Peta Prins he . ° Me RCRA OOO 5. Sp D4 j a) isc cea i: ‘ 56 members might féel he was not doing such a good job. This gives the members’ an opportunity to confront the - officers of the district to see that they are carrying out their job. From the district council, we would move then to the assembly, I believe, which: meets: each~ quarter, or oftener, ‘if necessary, and this is the highest body in the union, and _ . _this actually runs the union and has veto power over any... -: decision” anyone might make. wi —_Q~ How is the assembly elected? - A The assembly is. ~ elected by the membership on a districtwide. basis, on the ‘basis of one per 75 members actively employed. Q Is there also a further provision allowing for-repre- . sentation among department members in a district accord- “ing to the size they have to the total numbér in the dis- - .[fol. 1388] trict? A Yes, it is one per 75 with safe- — guards to see that no one craft will overpower another. craft and with safeguards to see one hotel won’t ‘over- power another hotel. There is representation for prac- tically every hotel and there is representation for every - craft. Q Please go ahead. ‘Out of the assembly we elect an executive board that meéts monthly and the executive board on its meetings monthly, makes certain decisions. -All of its decisions are subject to the approval of: the | assembly. You then have the administrative board, which is composed of ‘the a general officers -of the union who handle the day- y work of the ‘union, who are accountable to the executive board, and from the. executive board up to the ‘Assembly. . coe o the hotel Q Do you want to add the union delegates t and motel trades council to the administrative board, or aren’t they members? A Yes, some of — are mem-. bers. Q Godhead. ' Does that complete, the deseription? A I believe so. | * [fol. 139] Q Mr. Lurie suggests I. Pr you about the siatiead officers. Tell us about them. A The administrative board. is composed of the general officers and the vice presidents . _ and the a to the hotel trades council. The general . x 57 officers are the president, the sercetary-treasurer, the gen- . eral ‘organizer, and the ‘recording secretary. They meet from time to. time, make recommendations to the -admin- istrative board. The administrative board meets weekly. The administrative board- then carries out the day-to- day work of the union between meetings of: the eXecutive | board and the executive board, in- turn, must report to the assembly for its approval of any actions’ taken. | Q Do you want to fill out the description with. the functions of the vice-presidents and business agents? A Yes. The vice president is in charge of the district, and is elected out of the district and is in charge of the busines _ agents within’ that district. He supervises the- business agents, sometimes has an assignment for certain hotels. The business agents are assigned to the hotels, and/or (fol. 140] clubs, and. carry on the duties of a business agent within their specific assignment under the super- vision of the vice-president. a ae : ~Q Does that complete the description? A Yes, I be- . lieve it does. | ) . | ‘ | The Court: Mr. Marley, I take it the vice-presidents ‘ are not paid either, are they? : A Oh, yes, your Honor, vice-presidents are paid. The Court: I sge. We. chee, a Q Is it correct”that vice-presidents, sir— The Court: That’s right, and business agents are paid? - | os ‘ ‘The Witness: Yes,. sir. ae Q They are full-time people, aren’t they? A Yes, sir. Arar : Q They devote all their time to their jobs as viceé- presidents or business agents? A Yes,. sir. : Q Let’s get back to the assembly for a moment. You testified a moment ago, I believe, that the assembly. has the power of veto over actions of the executive board, is — that correct? A\ That is correct. ‘ [fol. 141] ; ‘ ‘ Can you‘recall any instance in the years 1962\to May 1965 when. the assembly did veto any action of the - executive board? > , : | Mr. Lurie: Objection. ¥ eg —¢ ‘vamner it? A I would like it read back. 58 The Court: Oh, I will iathits it. Overruled. ' A ‘Not at the moment. There may have been, but ‘ : don’t recall it at the moment. Q Would you’ say that the essential function of the assembly is to hear. and approve reports by the’ executive board or the administrative. board? A No, I don’t think that is the essential function. Q What would you say is the essential function of ' the assembly? A I think the essential function of the assembly is to run the union. | Q It does this by meeting, how many times a year? . A At least four times a year, although it may meet oftener. . . Q.-Did it meet ofteriar in the period from January _ 1964 to May 1965? A I don't know. G2 would — to . consult the records. oa [fol. 142] Q Do you recall whethon the die of Local 6 pro- vide that absence of an assembly member at, two succes- sive meetings af the assembly without reasonable excuse . results in his automatic expulsion from the assembly? . A Yes, the by-laws contain ‘such a clause. : QQ Do you remember if from the period .1962 to May © 1965 any assembly members were_expelled for absence at. two -successive meetings without reasonable excuse? Mr. Lurie: Objection. The. Court: I will permit it. Overruled. A ‘Do you want to give me the dates? ~Q Would you like the question read back or do you. (Question read.) a I don’t ‘think any assembly members were expelled * ° for that reason during that period—I don’t believe so. The Court: Where will I find that provision, Mr. Kushner, about getting expelled— Mr. Kushner: Your Honor, I believe you will find [fol. 143] that on Page 17, cand ‘1 will check it in a moment. ve -. (Pause. ) fo. A you. -of the assembly. . | 3 59 . The Court: Yes, I have it. You are ‘right. Thank Mr. Marley, do you know what constitutes a quorum of the assembly? A Yes,-I do. _ ooh gs What does? A More than 50 per cent, a majority Q A majority of the members attending? A Yes. Q Do you recall whether there were any occasions dur- ing the period 1962.to May 1965 when assembly meetings lacked a quorum? A ‘There may have been instances. I don’t recall. specific’ meetings where that was so, but. there may have been instances. -Q Do you recall whether it ‘was determined at any of ' these meetings. that there was a quorum lacking? A I don’t think ‘so. ae | ~ The Court: Mr.-Kushner, you said something about [fol. 144] members attending the-meeting. I take it the quorum is 50 per cent of the total membership of the assembly, isn’t it, Mr. Marley? ant The Witness: That is correct, sir. Mr. Kushner: If I said that, your Honor, I was in error. I am referring to page 19 of Exhibit 1, Section | 6 of Article 5. The Court: If there are not present at a meeting J 50 per cent. of the .total membership of the assembly then the assembly doesn’t have a quorum? =~ eka ~The. Witness: It would not have a querum. | , Q Incidentally, does the assembly receive any train-- ing classes n collective bargaining? A - The assembly. _ receives'a great. deal of training in practically every- thing. To be a member of Local 6’s assembly— Mr: Kushner: I move to strike as non-responsive, your Honor. ° ; 7 The Court: Well, I will. let it stand.. I suppose Mr. ‘Marley, what council is inquiring about is, are there any formal ‘classes for formal instruction in collective ‘bargaining given to. the assembly. The Witness: - Not to the assembly as such, but to union ‘members, ineluding the assembly. However, 2° . . [fol. 145] great; many of the assembly are involved in” direct negotiations with the employer. : 4 - om —_— SS Ah oe Pf 4 ote MO PE be tgs yy Fe ‘ 4 a @..2° The Court: ‘I think. Mr. Kushner is just asking about classes, is that right? Mr. Kushner: Yes, your Honor. — | The Court: Mr. Marley says there are classes" and some members of the assembly attend them, but there - are no classes specifically : for the assembly, as r under- stand it, -»The Witness: No formal eine, your Hnor. *Q You. spoke ‘a while ago about the shop delegates | council. Is it correct that you said you were a member of the shop delegates council? A Yes, ‘I was. Q Do you recall when the shop delegates council came into existence? A. That is going back far, far, far— . ~ that is more than a quarfer of a century ago and ‘to recall ' exactly, I couldn’t do it. I have a vague remembrance of it being called the shop delegates council in the very” early days of the union’ Q Do you recall the method by which the shop dele- gates council was chosen prior to 1947? A If there was’ [fol. 146] more than one method, then I am referring to more than one method. A_ In 1946, ’45, I would say that every delegate of a unit in a hotel or. club was a member of the shbp delegates council because of the fact that he was elected by his fellow members within that “unit. Q° How about prior to 1945? A My recollection is that this was prior to 1945. As a matter of fact, I believe that this was so in 1940, when I took my book in the union. Q Under that method, -was it jentibhe that one shop delegate might represent as few as. five or ten con- stituents?. A I believe he might represent—I am trust- _ - ing to memory—he might\represent six constituents or, if there were five or less there,*that he would be ap-. pointed. This is from recollection from a very long ' time ago. Q Would it be accurate to say that the shop delegate . in those days represented the same basic unit as a‘ depart- * ment delegate does today in Local 6? A_ I believe that. would be so. ? "i 61 [fol.147] a ae | The Court: I am_a little confused.. We have “now _. gotten to a department delegate. I thought we had talked ‘about a unit or a shop delegate and I thought we .had talked about a district delegate, did we? . Mr. Kushner: Your Hopor, I think that the depart- ment delegate from 1951“onward has been what Mr. Marley has called a shop delegate prior to 1951: , Q Mr. Marley, would you clarify that? A He has always been known as a delegate and the unit is much the same. As I explained before, in a dining room— The Court: If he was in Peacock: Alley, he would be © the shop delegate for the Peacock Alley dining room? The Witness: Yes, your Honor. He. would belong to the dining room department. He would not be the dele- ‘gate for the whole department in the hotel; he would only be the delegate for-that particular unit coming out of. that department. - . : | Mr.-Lurie: In the union the expression shop delegate . and department delegate was: used interchangeably. If a” [fol. 148] person was a delegate, he was called either the. shop or the department delegate. It-was the shop chair- man who would be different. The shop chairman would be the chairman of a group of delegates. I think that is correct, isn’t it, Mr. Marley? ~ - - The Witness: That’s correct. . The Court:- Well, I am confused because department I though referred to a very big organization, would in- clude more than a single dining room. _ Mr. Lurié: ‘If your Honor please, there is a depart- | ‘ment in the union, there is a department in the hotel and then there is a department in—there are breakdowns of the departments. In/’each hotel the union has what they call department delegates— — | a The Court: But it is not union department? Mr. Lurie: No, your Honor. | ; The Court: All right. I was taking it that Mr. Kush- ner was talking about union department. toate Mr. Lurie: They are union department delegates. -* [fol. 149] The Court: They are part of the union *4e- partment, all right. | ~\ . Reniatuisis hes IS AMM Nasties, coc' : ’ 4 ‘ i : $ e | 62 | re Pr 3 e Mr. Kushner: Section 4 of Article 2 of the by-laws, Exhibit 1, says that “each established and recognized unit of a hotel, motel or club having five or more mem- bers in good- ‘standing in the union shall be entitled to elect ong department delegate.” The Court:‘ Where is that? Mr. Kushner: Section 4 of Article 3 on page 4, at- the very bottom of page 4, your Honort The Court: Well, that ‘might mean a delegate to the -union department, perhaps. Mr. Lurie: In effect, that is what it is. “He is a dele- gate in the shop representing the workers. He also would be, if there were a meeting, as the union does call them, of department delegates throughout the city, he wou!d be the one to attend. The Court: Delegate to dhe department? Mr. Lurie: That is correct. . The Court: All right. [fol. 150] * * * Mr. Lurie: I am ved, sir. We have the prior = laws of the union, each of which makes reference in one form or another to the shop delegates, council,-and I am . producing . for-Mr: Kushner the original by-laws of the union, unde*ad, the second by-Mws of -the the union, ‘dated Notember 15-16, 1941, the third by-laws of the union, adopted at the convention of the union in Decem- ber of 1943, and that completes the by-laws of the union from the beginning of the union through the present time, ' (fol. 151] if your Honor please, with the exception of the amendment that took place subsequent to the eleetion. “Mr. Kushner: May we have-these three. documents marked for identification, please. - These are the vaaell ments that Mr. Lurie has just given to me. « ‘Mr. Lurie:: If your Honor please, I will have’ no ob- . _ jection to their -being directly admitted into evidence. The Court: Do you want to. offer them as 47A, B - and C? Mr. Kushner: Fine, your Honor. « “i » 63 Q I assume you havé' read these documents which are being offered as Exhibits 47, 47A and 47B (handing)? A No, sir. _ eet : Q You have not read them? A _ No, sir, I havé no. ~ The Court:. Without objectiori, they will be received ~ in evidence. N me | (Plaintiff's Exhibits 47, 47A and 47B were received _ in evidence.) 7 : Mr. Marley, is it correct that in the election of © — -[fol. 152] May 19, 1965,*the administration ran a com- plete set of candidates for assembly and for general office and for vice-president and business agent? Py > .Mr. Lurie: Objection, if your Honor please. The ad- ministration ran. no ticket in any election. There may be a group of people who were part of a party calling them- selves the A slate, but the administration doesn’t run a . candidates for office. ) re, ., Mr. Kushner: Your. Honor, I will reframe the ques- . * tion. _. The Court: I will sustain an. objection as to form. Q Is it correct that in the 1965 election the adminis- tration. party ran a complete set of candidates for assem- bly, genera! o and vice-president and business agent? A There was a@ complete slate’ running in Row A, and by that I take it that is the administration payty you are referring to?: ete Q Yes, sir. So that statement is correct? A Yes, sir.- a Q Is it also correct that every candidate on Row A { [fol. 153] won in the 1965 election? A - Yes, sir. Q Is it correct that in 1962 the administration party ran a complete slate of candidates for assembly, for gen- eral office, for vice-president and for business agent?’ A Yeo, dir.” ss Boe Q And is it correct that in the 1962 election every candidate on ‘the administration Row A won? A Yes, sir. ae -Q And I am including candidates for. assembly as well as for general office and business agent.. A I un- derstand. me et ores. rh ’ 3 Lb ATE NG AY oo mel POO ye Oe eo . plete = aan CR alg at a ee SS ee Roe eee wn ais Lm ee ay “Q You understood that? A_ I understood that. - Q In 1959 did the administration party run a com- plete set of candidates for general office, for vice-presi- dent, for business agent and for assembly? A I believe - they did. Q Did any administration’ candidate on. Row A in the 1959 election lose? A i don’t believe ‘$0. [fol. 154] : , Q In the elections in 1959, 1962 and 1965 the assem- bly candidates ran together with the candidates for gen- eral office and. vice-president and -business agent? A , - That is correct. Q In the 1956. election did -the assembly candidates run in.a separate election than the candidates for-general - office, vice-president and business agent? A I-en’t.. know if the year is correct, but I know that the assembly and the executive board at one time, ran in ‘two separate _elections._ I don’t know exactly the year when that ceased. Q hand you Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 26 and as-you if thdse exhibits refresh your recollection? A They do. Q. What is your answer? -A_ The answer is yes.- - Q In 1956 the candidates for assembly ran in Febru- ary, is that right? A That is correct. 3 Q Did the-.administration party put up a complete slate of candidates for tt yon Ek 1956? _ (fol. 155] Mr. Lurie: If your onor please, I have re- frained from making objections because I don’t want to appear too obstreperous, but I don’t. know whether Mr. Kushner is trying to prove in this case¢hat winnihg an election is a vice or. not or that because the membership has voted -towelect this administration on occasion, from time to time, is a vice or not. I cannot for the life of me — see the relevance of. this last. series of questions about elections which are not in issue here and that. doesn’t go. to who was elected, to who is eligible to run, which is one of the issues here. I cannot see how we clutter this record even further ith Mr. Kushner’s wild. vagueness. Mr. Kushner: Few things could be more relevant to the issues in this cage, your Honor, so long as the only possible way a ol member r presently in Local 6. can = 65 stand for higher office is to get elected to the assembly: and so long as the administration runs a complete set of . - eandidates for the assembly and thereby controls that access to higher office it. is quite relevant to determine what has been done in past electidns. , The Court: Well, I am going to take a very liberal (fol. 156] view of the eviderice without indicating in the slightest that it is entitled to any weight or, if so, to what weight. I will overrule the objection and permit - the answer. A ‘In 1956 there was.a complete ‘slate of candidates. run- - ning on Row A for-the-assembly Res | ~~ Q And Row A was the administration slate, is that . Mr. Kushner: Your Honor, could the last question be read: back? | 3 oie . The Court: Yes. - : Ag ot, . (Question read.) _ right? A Row A was the administration party. e* Q Did any candidate on, the administration party’s Row. A for assembly lose in the 1956 election?- A I don’t _ have the-results here, but I believe all candidates on Row _ A were elected. Q In 1956 did the administration party have a com- plete set. of candidates for general office, vice-president and business agent? A_ I believe that is correct. Q’ Did any of. the administration party candidates lose in the 1956 election? A. I don’t have the results © here, but’ I believe all of the candidates running on Row [fol. 157] A for the administration party were elected. Q In 1954 did ‘the administration party put up a com- plete slate of candidates for the assembly? A Excuse me. I ‘would like to just take one look at this for a mo- ment (indi¢ating). ico Q Please do. I will pause and wait. , (Pause. ) The Court: Would you rather take a few minutes. recess, Mr. Marley? - a ae The Witness: Yes, I would. * . & ” SOP D i hy come yee Ps ° oe Pi 66 recess. a (Recess taken. ) Mr: Kushner: Your Honor, could the reporter read — back the last question? ~ (Question read. ) A I believe they did. bas are not” referring to this “(in- ‘dicating)? — Q What exhibit are you. referring to? A ‘This is Exhibit 21. Q :No, sir. Do Exhibits 25 and 25A help you (hand- ing)? Is your answer that it did?” A It did. [fol. 158] Q -Did any administration candidate—did any admin- istration party candidate for assembly lose in the 1954 election? A _ I believe all of the candidates running in Row A were elected in that election. Q In 1954 did the administration party put up a com- plete slate of candidates for general office, vice-president and business agent? ink Mr. Kushner: May I have this marked for identifi- cation, please? ; (Plaintiff's Exhibit 48 marked for identification.) Q Perhaps this exhibit will ead you (handing). A Yes, it did. Q And did any candidate of the administration party lose in the 1954 election? A’ No, not to my knowledge. Mr. Kushner: I offer Exhibit 48 for identification in evidence. It is two pages from the Hotel and Club Voice, issue of May 22, 1954, which lists the candidates for general office ‘and vice-president and business agent. Mr. Lurie: No a. [fol. 158a] | The Court: Without objection, it will be received. . (Plaintiff's Exhibit 48 was received in evidence.) The Court: All right. We will take a few minutes. —_— _ 2 a i ia “ Bekssicw tyr assed. SA ait g RU ea AA ae, [fol. 159} Q In 1951, did the ppererrenren party put up a complete slate of candidates for the assembly? A . To the best of my knowledge, they did. -Q “Did any candidate for assembly put up by the ad- ministration party in 1951 lose that election? A I don’t. believe any candidate running in Row A lost in © that election. Q And Row.A-was of course the-f A The admin- - istration party. Q In 1951, did the administration put up a complete slate of candidates for general. office, vice-president and ' business agent? A_ It did. Q Did any candidate put up: by the administration | party lose? A No, sir. ~*~ Mr. Lurie: If your Hgnor slitint, just ‘to clarify the record, where Mr.. Marley talks about assembly elections in 1951, 1954 and 1956, he is really referring to election of delegates to the convention. The Court: Convention delegates .who became mem- bers of the assembly. - . Mr. Lurie: That is right.. [fol. 160] ee Q Mr. Marley, during what period of time were you secretary-treasurer. of Local 6? .A_ I believe from 19— . some time in 1953, late in 1953, probably December of 1953, up until ‘the election of 1965. Q During that period, when you were secretary-treas- urer, did you haye anything to do with arranging cau-: -euses for choosing candidates for the administration -party’s Row A? A No, sir, I did ‘not..- Q Were you prior to’ the time that” you were secre- -tary-treagyrer general organizer of Local 6? A’ No, sir. Ou weren’t? What office— A I beg your par-. ; ‘don. I thought you were repeating the: question as it had to do with the general organizer’s office. Q But you were— A _ I was general organizer of the union for * shert period. Probably a year or a Jittfe more. ~Q As se you had nothing to do with organizing . 68. caucuses to choose candidates on the administration party’s row? A_ As general ogee, 5 I didn’t —— [fol. 161] caucuses. Q Do yowknow if administration caucuses were held - in 1965 to _— candidates for ‘the administration ‘Row - A? “Mr. Lurie: Objection, if your* Honor please. The. Court: Yes, it doesn’t really.make any differ ence, Mr. Kushner. I think.I will sustain the objection. . ) Q Mr. Marley, did this requirement, that candidates ~ for general office. and for vice-president and business agent must have prior service on the assembly or shop delegate’s council or executive board or present service on - the assembly or executive board, apply to persons who were appointed to these offices? _. Not neeessarily, no. Q So the by-law requirement concerning prior office _ holding didn’t apply ‘to ‘persons appointed, right? -A . | .- The by-law requirement applies only to members of the union running in the election. These are election — . ments. Q. All right: | Do you a if any persons were ap- pointed to paid office in Local 6. who lacked present or - [fol. 162] prior service on the assembly or executive board ‘or prior service on the shop delegate’s council? A. “There may have been some. Q Do you recall any? A. Not at the moment. . Q Let me try and refresh your recollection. Interroga- tory 7 propounded by plaintiff to defendant here asks; “State tha, we information with regard to Lubos Pavli “A. Date of initiation into defendant.” The answer given is “April, 1952.” “B. Period of service shop delegate’s council.” The answer to B is“None.” ‘ -“C. Period of service in the assembly and district represented. % The answer to C is “November, 1961 to the pres- ent. District 4.” ~ “D. Period of service on- executive board, ‘ial The answer is ; None. ” Paste ARMA GI ance cre oP inl toen wid . ig Sih ay whether Mr. Pavlista had prior service in the assembly ' 69 “p, Period of: service as paid officer, tifle of each , paid office held and period for which each office held. . ~ffol.163) 7 ° The answer is, “November, 19g) | to the premet. } Business agent.” “F. Whether said person was appointed or lected to each of said paid offices.” The answer is, “Appointed business agent and. | then elected business agent. “ ‘ —-Q Does that refresh your :ecollection? A Yes, Mr. Pavlista: was appointed— In November, 1961? A Is it Noveniber,. 1961? ~ Q” That’s. what the answer. says, and that doesn’t re- ‘fresh your memory? A No. : The Court: Well, if that is the answer— A If that’s the answer, that is the answer. - The Court: I mean, isn’t the defendant bound by it whether it affects— - Mr. Kushner: Yes, your Rien. | The Court: Is that one that you ede seni into evidence? | * Mr. Kushner: No, I haven’t, your Honor. The Court: . Do you offer it into evidence? * Mr. Kushner: I do. : | -The Court: Any objection? * (fol. 164] Mr. Lurie: No objection. The Court: Admitted. Q Did you have anything to do with appointing Mr. Pavlista as business agent in November, 1961? A Yes. Q What? A_ I would make a recommendation along with the other officers of the administrative board to the executive: board and take it to the assembly for approval. Q In making the recommendation, did you consider ‘3 or shop delegate’s council or executive board? A I didn’t think™I was required to. Q So that you didn’t consider it? A ‘ didn’t con- sider: it. q ee =v Ps en eT ew ee ee ae Lod : « | ° . ” , A _The Court: Mr. Kushner, forgive me for intertupt- ing. Is this the-only instance you are going to develop? Mr. Kushner: No, there is one other, your Honor. The Court: Is it a business ‘agent? . [fol. 165] in 4° Mr. Kushner: Yes, sir. , (Discussion off the record. ) The Court: Back oni the record now. By Mr. Kushner: | Q Mr. Pavlista served continuously as business agent from “November, 1961 to the present, did” he not? Ae Yes, sir. Q Do you recall the district or districts in which he served? A I believe he served in District 4. He may have served in other districts. -Q Isn’t it a fact that Mr. Pavlista didn’t run for election in the Local 6 election of 1962? A. I don’t be- lieve he ran in 1962. Q But yet he continued to serve as bitin agent, - did he not?’ A He was later appointed by the assembly. Q Let me tay and elarify this, Mr. Marley. He was | first appointed in November of 1961? A _ Yes; sir. Q He didn’t run for election in = 1962 election? war A That is correct. [ fol. 166] Q And you say that later ‘he -was appointed “ the ; assembly again as a business agent? A He was reap- pointed by the assembly as a ‘business agent sometime after the election took place. - Q_ Did you consider running him in the 1962 election? Mr. Lurie: - Objection, if your Honor please. The Court: Yes, I will sustain the objection. . Q Incidentally, Mr. Marley, can you describe briefly the-sccasions under which persons may have to be ap- ~ pointed to paid office? One would be if there were a va- cancy, is that correct? A That Would be one. Q Is it possible to appoint additional _ officers? A You mean without a vacancy? | ; ¢ oa a: 2 Q Yes. A Yes, of course it is. If the need arises and there is a erisis in the union—or it doesn’t have to be a crisis. If the need arises and it is a feeling: of the - administrative board that' there should be appointments {fol. 167] in order to ‘service the members well, and. we: do service our members well, if this need arises, we have no hesitation in going before the assembly and making a recommendation to that. effect. | Q Has the need arisen? A Very often the. need has arisen, yes. The Court: You mean the vides of vice-presidents and the number of business agents isn’t fixed? - The Witness: Your Honor, the number of vice presi- dents‘ind business afents is fixed at the time of the election © for the purposes of election. However, if in the interim a need arises, if you bring in a New York Hilton and an Americana and so forth between. elections, obviously there will be a need to have extra staff-or if they— ‘ ~The Court: You mean the yy can create addi- tional positions? Sy ‘ The Witness: Yes, your Sones ; ae The Court: Of vice-president and business agent? The Witness: I would not say vice-president, but I would say. business agent. The. Court: Business agents, all right. (fol. 168] Q Let me read to you. Interrogatory 8 and the answer thereto. 8-A: | “State the following information with regard” — and there follows, a list of names. I am only taking. the mame Ralph Mandréw. “Date of initiation.into defendant.”. The answer is “December, .1957.” “Period of service in shop delegate’s council.” The answer to that is “None.” “C. Period of service in the assembly and dis- trict represented.” The answer to C is.June 26, 1963 to present) D Dis- - trict 5.” . “D. Period of service on executive board.” _ The answer to D ig “None.” \ %, . Dee | | ‘meeting of October 15, 1963. ee en = ae 72 “E. Period of service as: paid officer, title of each paid office held and period for which office was held.” The atiswer to E is, “Business agent, June 26, ‘1963, to present.” “7. ‘Whether said person was appointed or elected to each of said paid offices.” . _ The answer to F is “Appointed business agent, [fol. 169] and then elected business agent.” -_ Q. Did you have anything to do with appointing Mr. Mandrew as business agent? A I did. . Q What did you have to do with appointing him? A Mr. Mandrew was in the same position as Mr. Pavlista. - Both of them came out of a’ training class. They were two of our brightest people, and when the need arose in”: the case of Mr. Pavlista and again in the case of Mr. Mandrew, we went before the assembly and we recom- - mended that Mr. Mandrew be appointed as a business agent. Q Prior to_,recommending Mr. Mandrew's appoint- ment, did you consider whether or not he had had prior service in the assembly or on the executive board or in the shop delegate’s council? A No. a . * * * (fol. 185] Mr. Marley, was this bane proposed by the presi- dent of the international from “term” to “year” approved by the assembly of Local 6?. A It was. | Q What year? A I don’t know the meeting but I [fol. 186] am sure [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_IA40386412_0183%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.