Appendix — Underwood v. Maloney

viii ==. = Index to Appendix

: : . : ~

. % é; a

P-137—Letter dated May 19, 1949, from Me-

‘Donald to Maloney ...:............,

-Int!

duc

% Printed

at

> at Page ‘Page

P-138—Letter dated May 26, 1949, from °

William E. Maloney to John J. McDonald -

P-140—The letter dated June 3, 1949, from

John J. McDonald to William . Maloney -

-_—_

. P-144—Letter dated June 8,°1949, from John. °

' P-146—Letter dated June I7,. 1949, from

J. MéeDonald to William. E. Maloney -.

_ » John J. McDonald to William E. Maloney

P-147—Letter dated June 172.1949, from

. J@hn J. McDonald to William E. Maloney

_P-149—Letter. dated June 24, 1949, from

~ McDonald to Maloney. —: .

P-151—Letter d June 30, 1949, from

: McDonald G Son

P-152—Letter July 1 1, 1949, from Me-

‘Donald to Maloney...

Pp. 153—Letter dated July . 5, 1949, from

Maloney to McDonald .._.:_...

P-154—Letter dated.July 14, 1949,, from

Me ‘Donald to Maloney

P-155—Letter dated July -29, ‘1949, from

McDonald to Maloney...

P-157—2Letter, dated August 5, 1949,;from

McDonald to Maloney .....°....

P-162—Letter dated August 12, 1949, from

John J. McDonald to William E. Maloney

2 ‘p-165—Lettér dated August 18, 1949, from.

~ John J. McDonald to FP. A. Fitzgerald. .

P-167-2—Letter; August 19, 1949, MeDon-"

ald to Maloney .......

P-167-4—Letter, August 31, 1949, McDon-"

ene te Minbetiey. .. « «2. . 6 cs sess

>. P.167-5—Letter, September 8, 1949, wneaeel

a

ald to veamnieed were rs ete a oe

9

965a

9662

66a

- 967a

9682

’ ‘968a :

96%

970a

970a

971a

972a

‘978a

y

. ie

_ P-167-28—Letter, December 16, 1949, Mp re

Indes to Appendit sii —

‘Intro- Printed

duced at

at Page Page

. P-167- 6—Letter, Septentier 16, 1949, Me- |

: ‘Donald to Maloney... — | 988az ,

_ P-167-11—Telegram, September _ 22, ‘1949,

McDonald to Maloney. 0... s sontl 984a

_. P-167-12—Letter, September 22, 1949\Me- |

,* Donald to Maloney 3 teen 984a-

P-L 67-13—Telegram, September 25, _

Maloney to Wharton.

P-167-14—Letter, September 29, 1949, Me- Sent.

. , Donald to Maloney — 986a

P-167-17—Letter, October 14, 1949, MeDon- :

—>~ 986a

ald to Maloney - tan ° Tae /987a |

-P-167-18—Letter, October 21, 1949, MeDof- ee cea

P-167- 27——-Letter, December 9, 1949, Me-

Donald to Maloney”

Donald to Maloney Pee ee ee ee "9913

McDONALD REPORTS—1950:

P-168-2—Letters, January 13, 1950, McDon-

»

‘ ald to Maloney ~~. — 988a

_ P-167-19—Letter, November 3; 1949, MeDort |

- aldto.Maloney * —~__ 989a .

- P.167-21—Telegram, McDonald to: Maloney —— 989a

- P-167- 23—Letter, November 11, 1949, Mce-. .

Donald.to Maloney: ...-. s... o— 990a

_ P-167-25—Letter, December 2, “1949, Me-

Donald to Maloney cane: —_S — 990a

ald toMeleay...-- oc. —— "99a.

P-168-3—Letter, January 20,1950, McDon-

S contead amuse A ee =— _ 998

-P-168-4—Letter, February 10, 195 MeDon-

' ald to Maloney ..-{..-....:™®..; — . 993a

P-168-7—Letter, March 3, 1950, McDonald :

‘to ow bieGagten a RY ; a 993a © ;

Se

ge

i d

a. a Index to Appendix

P-168- 8 Letter, March 13, 1950, McDonald

to Maloney

_P-168-9—Letter, March 17, 1950, McDonald

to Maloney

P-168-17—Letter, April 21, 1950, McDonald

- to Maloney |

-p- -168-]9—Letter, May 5, 1950, McDonald

to Maloney. |

P-168=24—Letter, June 9, 1950, McDonald to

Maloney _......... Tae. a. GI

. P- 168-27—Letter, July 14, 1950, MeDonal

to Maloney

-P-168-32—Letter, Sentember 1, 1950, Mee

Donald to Maloney

P-168-33-Letter; September 8, 1950, Mc

Donald to Maloney

_ P-468-34—Letter, September 18, 1950, Mc-

- Donald to Maloney

_ P-168-35—Letter, October. 6, 1950, MeDon-

ald to Maloney

. P-168-41—Letter, Decpmber 1,-1950, McDon-

ald to Maloney e

ty ,

“McDONALD REPORTS—1951: _*

~ -P-169-4—Letter, February 16, 1951, McDon:

ald to Maloney «=

p- -169-5—Letter, February 23, 1951, McDon-

ald to Maloney ; g

P-169- 6 Letter,. March 5, 1951, McDonald

‘to’ Maloney

P-169-8—Letter, March’: 23, 1951, McDon- ,

_ ald to Maloney | i

P-169-12—Letter,. — A 1951, McDonald

to: iasnt ade a

Intro-

duced

at Page

ee

Sanaa

—

°

.

a

sane

eee

Printed

at

Page

a

&"

~—994a

994a

— 995a

o

Index to Appendix | re <

at “Intro- - Printed |

_¢ . et: : duced at

_. , atPage Page

P-169-13—Letter, May 18, 1951, McDonald

Ny deer hse nies ose 6 A —— 1004a

P-169-14—-Letter, June 4, 1951, McDonald

oy, Maloney } | —— 1004a

P-169-17—Letter, June 11, 1951, MeDonald_

. to Maloney? . 2 .. ——— , 10058

P-169-18—Letter,; June 16,. 1951, McDonald ‘

to Maloney .. -— > 1006a

P-169-21—-Letter, July 3, 1951, McDonald to é

Maloney — -.. ——- 1007a

_ P-169-24-—Letter, July “19, 1951, Malone? to "|

Underwood ——"* 1007

P-169-29—Letter, August 31, 1951, McDon>, } .

ald to Maloney i 1008a

P-169-30—Lettef, October 8, 1951, MeDon- Nf.

ald to Maloney — 1008a

2 P- 169- 31—Letter, October 16, 1951, McDon- ¥

ald to Maloney — 1008a

~ P-169-32—-Letter ede, 23, 1951, MeDon- -

be I os, ee te ee — 1009a

con ty REPORTS—1952:" .

P-170-2—Letter, February bs, 1952, McDon- ca

ald to Maloney: if —— 1009a

_ P-170-3—Letter, March 4 1952, McDonald

| to -Maloney /— 1010a

P-170- 4—Letter, March 14, 1952, McDonald 7

to Maloney 7S eg ae mn ie

_ p-170-6—Letter, May. B, 1952, McDonald to 2,

aloney .. .. —— 1010a.

P-170-7—Letter, June 2, 1952, "McDonald Te

UI, oe oo 5 gsi an ny 5, <p —- 1012a .

- P-170-8—Letter, June . 10, ‘1952, 2, MeDonald « ial

to Maloney; lee seenes jv 1012a

xii Index to Appendix

| ; : Wie iis na

o duced. at

; , at Page . Page

P-170-9—Letter, June 20, 1 » McDonald

i a ee wns 16S

P-170- 10—Letter, July 7/1952, McDonald to i

|" REE ae FM ae — 10142

P-170-11—Letter, July 14, 1952, McDonald ,

to Maloney - rin eS at ee eae — 1014a.

~ P-170-12—Letter, July 21, 1952, McDonald | |

ea etree cn . —— 1016a

- P-170-13—Letter, July 28, 1952, “McDonald Fo seere ae

: DI. Ol er tr ee .— 1016a

P-170-14—Letter, August 7, —1952,,,McDon- °

MwGum .— 1017a

~ P-171-1 to P-171-24—Group of 24 Tele-

grams, the first one being a telegram

from Buckley, & Co., Inc., to John Fag-.

ee. oe Be Ber eee Herc aae . 820a ——"

- P-172—Telegram from Roy J. Underwood to

- the Building and Construction Trades : :

Council, dated May 7,1951.. ...... $21a_822a

_P-173—Telegram from Arthur D. Hill for

William E. Maloney to Roy’ J. Under- > ee

. ‘wood, dated May 7,951 ss. 822a 822a

P- -174A—Telegram from Roy J. Underwood, -

‘dated May 8, 1951, to the Members of

the Executive Board of the Local Union. 828a° *8238a

P-174B—List of names attached to Exhibit :

~ P-174A a.. 823a

P-175A through P- 175M—A series of let-\

ters and telegrams | . a

P-176—Telegram dated December 15, 1950,

from Arthur D. Hill for William E. Ma-- a

lonev to Roy J. Underwood - (824a 825a

.P-177—Telegram dated May 7, 1951, from -—

the McCormick Construction Company

-to. Roy J. Underwood 825a 825a

R :

ee index to Appendix | xiii

| Intro- Printed

mie . ’ duced at

at Page Page

.P-178—A two-page typewritten document

entitled, “Last Union proposal. Submitted

- to Maloney & Halloran in Chicago on .

last day of discussions—July 30th”... —— - 826a

P-1883A—Official minutes of meeting of the

International Union of. Operating Engi-

‘neers held on June 23, 1952... ..... — 1020a

_P-185A—Official set of minutes ‘of the mem- . * - 3

bership: meeting of July 1, 1962... — 1022a

. P-186—Letter dated June 23, 1952, from

William E. Carter, President, Local - —~

Union 825-825A, to William E. Maloney —— 1023a

P-187—Handwritten minutes of special] Ex-

' ecutive Board meeting held on July 22, — -

ois Ser eee —— 1027a- ‘

P-188—Handwritten mifiutes dated J uly 23, ase

minutes of a meeting of the negotiating ~

committees of uniop’ and employers“ . -—— 1029a

P-189—Handwritten minutes of meeting of

Negotiating Committees held on July 25,

ES ete —— 1043a

P-190A—Letter dated July 26, 1952, from |

William E. ‘Carter to William E. Ma- ~

Joney ........ 2 —— 1047a

‘p- 191A—Two-page document, Official Min- =

utes of the Special Meeting of the Ex- a,

ecutive Board —— 1053a.

- P-IS2A—Four-page typewritten. docuinent, we

_ official minutes of the meeting of ws

Executive Board _, —— 1054a

-P-193A—Seven-page typewritten document,

official minutes of. regular meeting, me |

- August 5,1952. —— 1059a

P-62A—Official Minutes of Special. Meeting

‘> ~of-Executive Board held on ee 12 7:

1952 | | . + -1078a

xiv Index .to Appendix . -.

Intro-: Printed

ee ee eee P een nee ns wernt PER a Page ll

| p- 194—Excerpts from arbitration proceed- :

a: , ings previously marked Exhibits P-26-A, se indies

ee “ B,C, DandE.... — 1078

mo 5.909/A. "Telegram from James L. soli:

ta - to Harry Taylor, dated May 4, 1951 | a86a 1097a

p-202-B—=Letter from James L. Loughlin to :

Harry Taylor, dated May 4, 1951 — §86a 1097a

P-206—Report of Proceedings of the Forty-

Third Annual Convention of the Build-

. ing and Construction - ‘Trades Depart-

ment, American Federation of Labor § 890a

p-208—Letter from Captain James H. Farley .

' of the Department of Police, Atlantic ;

2 City, New Jersey, dated March 19, 1948 923a 1097a ©

-. p- greg dated’ April 14, 1952, from .-

David Williams to Mr. James L. Me- '

Devitt | ' .935a 1099a

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBPYS teas

) * “Page |

D- aaa of the Constitution of the Inter- :

~ national Unign of Oper eine singin 1102a |

Rulings:on Requests .1120a

Oral Opinion (Clary, J., May 23, 1957: filed June 7, 5

—) me i ee ae: ~ '1122a

Supplemental Geiidan. (Clary, J., May 23, 1957;

~ . filed June.7, 1957) ie A157a.

Order for Judgment in Favor. of Defendant ( Under- 7

wood v. O'Malley) ‘ 1182a

Order Granting, Without Prejudice, Pray er of Plain-:

‘tiffs to Set Aside Supervision (Daw son et al. |

v. Maloney et aly * 4182a

Order Dissolving Temporary Injunction , (Dawson

et al. v. Maloney et al.) | 1184a.

rf $ Pe 3

‘Docket Entries. (No.14,898) sa

DOCKET. ENTRIES»

No. 14, 398

Roy “J. UNDE RWOOD

vs.

"WILLIAM E. MALONEY, Individually’ and as Biidician.

_ tative of the- Ivfternational Union-pf Operating En-

__ gineers aye. os Se

1952,

Oct. 30

&“

30

Nov. 10

“

Dec. 15

“ 16

Faces .

1953

Jan. 14

66. 19

May 7

66 7

“cc Zi.

“3 28

Amended Complaint filed. ot

‘Complaint filed.

Summons exit. ee

Summons. returned Oct. 31, (1952 “served” end

filed. ,

Motion by International Union of Operating

Engineers to Dismiss filed.

Motion by William E. Maloney to Dismiss filed.

_ Order to issue alias summons filed.

. Alias summons exit.

Alias summons returned ‘ “on Nov ember 25, 1952

served” and filed.

Motion of William E. Maloney to dismiss action ©

_and affidavit in support of motion, filed.

Motion. of International Union. of Operating

Engineers to dismiss action and affidavit. in

‘ support of motion filed.

Atmeniihent : to adaciaiai filed.

Argued sur Motion to Dismiss. CAV,

Opinion, Clary, J. denying motions to dismiss,

‘ete., filed. :

Order of Court denying motions to distnies and

granitng leave to file Amended Complaint

within 20 days, filed. Noted and notice mailed —

5 8/53.

° *,

Notice of taking ee. of William -

— ss | a

-—s

2a

6

Cf

‘

io)

“

. : 66

ee

+6

16

16

16

a

_ Docket Entries” (No. 14,398)

- . June 2. Stiptilation and Order extending time for filing —

answer etc., to amended complaint, filed.

6 3 53 noted. ie =>

Motion for redress against defendants for fail-

ure to.make discovery. ;

Hearing sur motion for redress, etc. Eo Die:

The Court directs counsel to continue with

depositions. - mm Saba

Motion by defendants for Judgment or to strike,

filed. oe co ;

Transcript of hearing on June 16, 1953 filed. °

2 “Deposition of Wm. E.-Maloney, filed. (2 vols.)

Plaintiff's motion for judgment under: Rule 37,

filed. 7 : ites

Defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice -

of oral examination, etc., filed.

Hearing sur Plaintiff’s Petition for Judgment .

-and sur Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Plain-

- tiff’s noticé of oral examination, etc. |

Order dictated to stenographer—to be effec-

tive when filed. . | :

Transcribed Order of Court sur Taking of oral

deposition filed. .7°28 53 Noted-& Notice

mailed. a >

_ Transcript of 7 29 53 filed.

Transcript of 7 22°53 filed.

- Argued sur defendants’ motion for Judgment,

[| Sr oon,

Order denying defendants’ Motion for judgment,

etc., filed. 9 25 53 noted & notice mailed.

Stipulation and Order extending time for filing

~ answer to amended complaint to 10 9 53 filed. -

Answer to Amended Complaint filed.

Defendants’ demand for-a jury trial, filed.. -

Motion for Order vacating plaintiff’s notice of:

. taking depositions of Joseph S. Fay filed.

want

“

- &

sé

“6

«6:

La)

- £6

sé

sé

6é

22

23 .

23

23

, =

wo

. “or

ot

16

\

@,y 9 a Ree

Docket Entries (No. 14 398) ‘Ba

Lasers foe Order vacating plaintiff's notice of:

\

taking Gepoaitzons of Victor S. Swanson, et al.,

filed.

Motion. for Order vacating plaintiff's nétice of

, taking depositions. of. Alfred R, Loss, et al.,

filed. .

Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants’. Motion to

Vacate Notice of taking a of J oseph

'S. Fay. filed.

Plaintiffs Ariswer to ebcndanis Motion to...

Vacate Notice of taking Depositions: of John ‘

J. McDonald &. Victor S. Swanson: filed.

-

Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Motion. to..

Vacate Notice of taking Depositions of Alfred i

_4 R.s Loss, et:al., filed. 4,

Transcript of 10/26 53, sur Motion for Con-

tinuance of Argument, filed.

Hearing sur Defendants’ Motion for Order va-

cating plaintiff’s N otice of taking. Deposizons,

CAV.

Transcript of testimony of Wm. E. Maloney

taken before trial, filed. (2 vols.)

' Order denying defendants’ Motion without pre-

judice to vacate and set aside plaintiff’s notice

of taking depositions of Joseph S. Fay filed.

11 6 53 noted & notice. mailed. :

Order granting defendants’ Motion without pre-

judice to vacate and set aside plaintiff’s notice

of taking depositions of Alfred-R. Loss, et al.;

filed. 11:6 53 noted and notice mailed.

Order dismissing defendants’ motion, -avithout

prejudice, to vacate and set aside plaintiff’s

notice of taking depositions of Victor S. Swan-

son, et al.,. filed. 11/6/53 noted & notice *

_ mailed. — ?

Order to place-case on jury trial list filed.

o

®.

¢9

—

66 31

ae |

wr)

‘sh

g

Docket Entries: (No. 14,398)

Transcript of Nov. 3, 1953, filed... |

Order amending Order of 11/5/53, and denying

Motion of defendant to vacate arid set aside’

plaintiff’s notice of taking .deposjtitons of,

Joseph S. Fay, ete., sani ‘12/ 7/53 noted & |

“notice mailed.

. Ttanscript of meeting in re seodaitain and iden- —

tification of documents in accordance. with

Order of 1/27) 53, filed. (2 vols:)

| Deposition of ,Vietor S. Swanson filed.

Deposition of Victor S. Swanson. and John J.

McPonald filed. | He

pene eas of further identification of exhibits. .

’ filed.

Petition for and Rule té Show Cause why de- .

- fendant Wm. E. Maloney should not be held

for contempt — rule returnable March 22,

1954, filed.

Deposition of. Joseph S. Py. filed.

Petition of plaintiff for protective order under

Rule 30 filed. \

Answer of Wm: E. Maloney to petition for at--

tachment for contempt, ete., filed.

Answer to plaintiffs’ Petition for Protective.

Order, filed.

Hearing sur rule to hold dideadand in contempt;

and sur plaintiff’s motion for protective order.

CAV

Transcript of hearing of 3. 22 54 filed.

Opes, Clary, J., sur motion‘to hold defendant

‘in contempt and sur “motion for _protective

order, filed. :

Order of Court denying motion, to hold ‘defend-

ant in.contempt and for judgment; granting .

’ P ° ° :

T 3+. « * ; : Fs

‘ - ; . 2

* ° * %

"-” Docket Entries (No. 14,398) sinus

- «to a limited extent plaintiff’s motion for pro- . -

tective Order; and directing that plaintiff’s

costs in taking — deposition of Wm.

_E. Maloney be paid. by defendant, “filed.

7 29. 54° noted & notice mailed.

n

‘Plaintiff's notice of taking as pec of George

Meany, filed.

i Deposition of George Meany, filed.

“é . 4

sé 4

Ae ‘ 4

+

Sept. 29

Nov. 7

Dec. 13

1954 of Wm. E. Maloney, filed.

Motion of Plaintiff for Preliminary Injunction

- and Order of Court granting rule.on defend-_

ants” to show cause why injunction should not |

issue, filéd. Returnable 3-4-55 3-4-55 noted.

Heari ing sur Moijon for Pr eliminary Injunction.

Transcript of 1 further examination on Nov. 30,

Order granting’ temporary. injunction against

Wm. EK. Maloney ‘and Hunter P. Wharton;

Ind. ete., filed. 3 7°55 Noted & Notice Mailed.

Security to be entered by plaintiff i in the: sum

of $2,000.

Preliminary Injunction Bond in $2, 000 ‘with U. s.

Fidelity & Guaranty Co., as surety, ‘filed.

Transcript of testimony of hearing on motion:

for preliminary injunction, filed.

Plaintiff’s notice of taking gee of J. How-:

ard McGrath, filed. ;

Defendants’ motion and Notice of motion to com-

~ pel Roy J. Underwood to answer certain ques- -

tions on Depositions .and to produce certain

documents, filed. - © 6«

Motion to compel defendants’ Maloney, et al., ‘to

‘answer quesitons on oral examination, ett.,

filed.

aS. : 13

“é 13

Dec. 20

1956

Jan. #2

Mar. 28

Apr. 3

May 2

. :

June 18:

sé T&

we

rT 627.

July 3

46. 3

Aug. 30

“~~ 30

“é 30

. ae

Docket Entries (No. 14,398)

Plaintiff's Petition for counsel fee and expenses -

pursuant to Order of Court dated July a

1954, filed.

- Pre-trial Hearing (transcript of hearing to be

Order)

- Transcript of hearing of 12-13- 55, filed. .

_ Order denying plaintiff’s motion for production

of William E. Maloney’s income tax return for

1952 filed. 1 13 ‘56 noted and notice mailed.

Pre-Trial Hearing (Chambers)

Transcript of Pre- Trial. Hearing filed.

Order directing plaintiffs, within 15 days from

this date, to identify the specific members of

the ‘Union who constitute. the representative

- .group.in this class action, filed. 5, 3 56 noted

& notice mailed.

Transcript of testimony (12 volumes i filed:

Hearing sur Motion for protective Order. ‘tran-

scRipt to be filed) .

. Appearance of Cornelius C. O’Brien, Jr., Esq.

for defendants filed.

| Transcript of hearing of 6- 18-56 (in chambers)

filed.

Transcript-of. hearing 6- 21-56 (in chambers)

filed.

Deposition of Roy J. Underwood filed. +6 12 56)

Deposition of Roy J. Underw ood filed.16 20 56 )-

Deposition of Harry R. Halloran, filed.

Plaintiff’s motion ‘to compel Harry: R., Halloran,

- to answer questions filed.

Pre-Trial Hearing.

Peps of a H. we 8 (continued ) filed.:

R

ne .

Docket Entries (No: 14 398). "a... Bo

os I

"Sept. ie Answer of Harry R: Halloran to plaintiff's mo-

tion to compel Harry. R. Halleran, a ‘witness,

to answer questions, filed. .e

1957 3

Feb. 4 Trial- witnesses sworn. “0

« 6, 6:7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 3: Mar 4,5, 6,-

ee 7,11, 12, 18, 19, 20; Apr. 23. Trial.

8 Deposition of J. Howard McGrath, filed-

eae

ar, 18 Motion of defendant to Dismiss fil filed.

“ “18 “Motion of déte ndant to strike portions of plain-

| , tiff’s evidence e filed,

Se Transcript of 3 22 57 filed.

8. Testimony filed. (23 vols.)

“ . 3. Argued sur P.& P.. CAV

6° Transcript, testirnony 5 357 filed. 6.

5

filed.

me Plaintiff's requests for findings of. fact and con-

op clusions of lawy,-filed.

“93° Defendants’ requests for findings of fabt anid

| conclusions ot law, filed.

--“% . 23 In open court: opinion sur.P. & P. enti ovalie’

fo

wf Order of Court entering judgment in favor’ of

defendant‘ and against plaintiff filed: 5 24 5

-. noted & notice mailed.

ee Dera tes tempor: ary injunction entered

: pe “DD filed. °

o BE See exceptions - to findings, conclusions,

‘. "and statements rendered or ally, by the Court,

} filed.

“* 31 Plaintiff's notice of inponl, filed.

tiled.

” Consolidated index of witnesses and exhibits i.

. 31 *Copy of Clerk’s Notice to U.S; Court of Appeals,

ap

~~

66

tc

«

i

co. . ; . hs ‘ ©

° ° : .* \

: . i & . .

on - i ‘

Docket Entries (No. 1 398). .

Notice of Asawa by plaintiff (from Order dis- ‘“»

solving temporary-injunction ! filed.”

Copy of Clerk’s Notice to U. S. Court of Appeals,

Afiled. =

“Record transmitted to U. S. Court of Appeals.

- Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opin-

ion of the Court, Clary, J., filed. Noted 6/6/57

| Supplemental record transmitted to U.S. eas

_ of Appeals. .

Transcript of poceedings on 1 June 7, 1957, filed. .

Supplemental record transmitted to U.S. Court i

of Appeals:

Certified copy of Order of U. S. Court of Appeals

granting Injunction and requiring bonds of

$2,000}00 each filed.

’ Plaintiff ¥ injunction bond in $2000. with United

- States Fidelity-& Guaranty Co., sais k ap-

proved and filed.

-Defendant’s ifjunction bond in $2000 with In- |

* demnity Insurance ,Company of North Amer-

‘ica as surety, approved and filed.

: peas

° : 9

° 2S . o

1

. a . i e J

ERRATUM. ¥

Afi the testimony appearing én page 78la and ; ball

and the first five lines of: testimony appearing on

: nage: 782a are not. in order.” his testimonysis from °

the deposition of William Maloney and follows

line 1 on page 725a. It has been reprinted and tipped

in, opposite page F25a..

¢

a ae

Ga.

¢ ee . s c : : .

Amended Complaint (No. 14 398) 9a

AMENDED COMPLAINT

No. 14,398 |

ROY. J. UNDERWOOD

,

| WILLIAM E. MALONEY, Indiv dually and as Representa-

tive of the Inter national Union of Operating Engi-

_ neers.

1. Plaintiff, Roy J. Underwood, is a citizen of. the Com-

monwealth of Pennsylvania, andat all times mentioned ‘

hereinafter was:thé duly elected | President and Business

ee Manager of Local Union 542: and igre ee 542A, 542B

ty

and 542C,‘of the International Unio

of ‘ ofueesetie _—

neers. - fs

~ 2. Local Union 542 and its euiitins 542A, 532B and

§42C, hereinafter referred to as Local 542, is a labor union .

engaged in the budlding and construction trades industry

in interstate commerce operating under a charter issued

by the’ Inter national Union of Operating Engineers on

December 31, 1939. The said charter granted local auton-

omy-and vested the said Local 542 with exclusive jurisdic- |

tion within the Eastern half of Pennsylvania and the State

- of.Delaware. The membership of Local 542 is, composed of

engineers, oilers and firemen, Ramee taut to as

.

Engineers. Foss

3. Defendant, William E. Madoney, is a citizen of the

. State of Illinois and is’ General President of the Inter-

national Union of: Operating Engineers.

‘4, The International Union of Operating Engineers,

-hereinafter referred to as the International, is a_ labor

union affiliated with the American Federation Labor, ;

with its pr ‘incipal office in Washington, D. C.

- 5§.-Plaintiff, Roy J. Underwood, was first elected by .

; the fmembership of Local 542 as President and Business

Manager on March. 25, 1948, for a term to expire in June,

1949. He was - subsequently re-elected for a second term in

ad

oe Cl) ne Amended Complaint (No. 14,898)

i . * ‘ bd a .

June, 1949 to June, 1950, and he was again re-elected for

a,third term of four years from June, 1950. to June, 1954.

6. During the entire period of plaintiff’s tenure. in

office, plaintiff managed the affairs of the Union in a highly

satisfactory and successful manner, and he conducted him-

self in all respects in full accord with the law and in the —

‘best interests, of the Union and its membership.

7. Shortly prior to. May 1, 1952, Local 542 effected a .

“new agreement with the majority of employers to replace

the existing agreement ..which was schediled to expire on

‘the latter date. However, no agreement could-be effected

with a small minority of employers as a*eonsequence of.

which a strike resulted against the latter group. .-

~ - &. The said strike was authorized and. directed by a

vote of the membership of Local 542, and its officers were

instructed té, carry: on the strike to a successful conclusion.

Plaintiff, as President and Business Manager of the Local,

carried on the strike in accordance with the mandate of the

membership and with the advice and aid of the Executive

Board of the Local. ee ee i |

9. The said strike was carriedon with the full knowl- .

edge and consent of the International and was officially

assisted: bythe International. through its General Vice

President, John J. McDonald. rs

10. After the strike had been successfully carried on

for a number of weeks and various attempts by the em-

_ ployers. to break the strike had failed, certain representa-. |

- tives of the employers made centact. with defendant Wil- |

liam E.. Maloney, General President of thé International,

and improperly influenced him to-use all his authority and

the power of his office to break the strike of the Local and

_toeremove plaintiff from office. tae 7

11. Pursuant to an understanding with the employer —

~ representatives, defendant Maloney brought. pressure to |

bear upon plaintiff to terminate the strike without the con- —

sent of and without the vote of the Local’s membership, and *

a

> - -— =

- munication, attempted to ae for a

tween the employers and the

- purpose of discussing the demands of the Local and work- :

ing out a satisfactory settlement. A true and correct copy

Amerided Complaint (No. 14,298) cost se: She

- to abandon the dosahrais for which. the strike was being

- carried on.

12. Plaintiff declined to call off the brie or to aban-

‘ don the demands of the Local without a vote of the Local: :

_mémbers ship. ‘Defendant Maloney then ordered plaintiff to

call a-méeting of the Local and to advise the member ship

of his (Maloney’s) ‘instructions. |

- 13. In compliance with the divention of defendant

| Maloney, plaintiff called a meeting of the membership on

August 5, 1952, and informed them of defendant Maloney’s

demands, The membership voted to maintain their demands

and ¢o continue the-strike.

14. Following the meeting of the membership afore- .

said, General’ Vice President McDonald, by-written com-

agnernc be-

ocal’s representatives for the

of the said communication. is hereto attached and marked

“Exhibit 2-C”’.

15. In response to the said communication, .a meeting

was arranged with certain of the employers, whereupon de-

fendant Maloney, pursuant to a conspiracy with other em-

ployer representatives, caused said meeting to be cancelled

_ and issued a written order intended to break the strike and

~ compel the membership to abandon their demands. A true

and correct copy of the said. order is hereto attached and-

marked “Exhibit 2-D”. The said order of defendant Ma- —

loney was a violation of the.constitution of the Inter-

national, which, inter alia, gave’ the Local the right to make ~

its own contracts and the right to carry on a strike.

16. Because compliance with the order of defendant

Maloney would break the strike and destroy the Local’s -

bargaining position, the Executive Board’of the Local went

into immediate session and resolved to take immediate legal -

action to test ‘the validity of defendant. Maloney’s or der.

— oo

. >. aa ; ‘.

12a Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

Accordingly, the Board directéd plaintiff to authorize coun-

sel for the Local to institute immediate legal action to re-

strain Maloney. from enforcement of ne order and to test

its validity. ,

- 17.° Pursuant to-that resbtaticn of the Executive Board

of the Local, a complaint’ was’ filed in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylwania

on- August 12, 1952, entitled Civil Action No. 14, 071, seek-

ing a declaratory judgment with a stay of proceedings in the

meanwhile. The case came on for hearing before the Hon-

orable Allan K. Grim on ‘August 14, 1952, upon a motion

for a preliminary injunction. At the suggestion of the

Court, the proceedings were recessed and the parties ad-

- journed to the Court’s chambers in order to explore the

possibilities of a settlement. As a consequence of the dis-

‘cussions in chambers, a tentative settlement was reached,

subject to approval of the membership, whereby the ge

mands of the Local were to be submitted to arbitration dnd’

the men to return to work in-the,meanwhile. The said set-

tlement proposal was agreed to by defendant Maloney, and

on August 18, 1952; the Loeal’s membership, at a special

meeting, voted to accept the* proposal and to return to work

the following morning. :

18. The following morning, August 19, 1952, at 10: :00

a.m.. counsel for the Local reported to the Court, with all

parties present, that the Local’s membership had epprov ved

-_ the agreement and had already returned to work. Imme-

diately thereafter, at about 11:00:a.m. the same morning,

defendant Maloney: issued a new order “invoking super-

vision” and he took immediate exclusive control over all the -

assets and affairs of: the Local and suspended | plaintiff,

without any hearing, from performing any of the functions.

of his office as President and Business Manager. A copy

of the said Order is hereto attached and marked “Exhibit

19. Thereafter, charges were preferred against the

aenr to the General Executive Board of the Ipterna;

as J

. i. “

my ; a es - ; > .

e 7s G

Aiinutiul Complaint (No. 14,898) 18a

slenid: ‘alleging that by the filing of the conn: aforemen-

tioned, plaintiff had (1) deliberately defied the con-

stitutional authority of General President Maloney, (2)

_ circumvented the constitution by filing a lawsuit when ng

- complaint or charge had been -fileg with the International .

-Union, and (3) used the lawsuit as a means to charge the

General President with reprehensible, derogatory and il-

legal conduct. A copy of the said charges is — attached

and marked “Exhibit ar )

20. Plaintiff filed an answex to- the pen denying

that he had violated the International Constitution, and ~

- set forth his ‘defense to the charges. A-copy of the said

" answer is hereto attached and marked “Exhibit 2”. . |

21. The charges came on for hearing before the Gen- .

eral.Executive Board of the International Union on Sep- —

tember 17, .1952.. At this hearing plaintiff was denied the

right to counseL#lthough the General Counsel for the Inter-

national Union appeared against him; the-proceedings were - -

not repor ted; there was no. examination or cross-examina- -

tion of any ‘witnesses; no proper evidence was introduced

to support the charges and no’ evidence was introduced to

dispute the truth of the allegations contained in the com- _—

plaint regarding the conduct of defendant: Maloney which °

was alleged in the charges to be repr ehensible, derogatory

and ‘illezal; the. said General Executive Board did not

render free and independent consideration and judgment °

byt was et all times dominated, controlled and improperly

coerced and influericed by the said defendant Maloney ;

there was no due process of law accorded to. plaintiff, and

the said’ proceedings did not constitute a hearing wifhin the

: SS of that term. . or :

2. Follewing the said “hearing”, a deciSion was ren-

oe by the General Executive Board, Mlegedly unani-

mous, removing plaintiff from office, suspending him from‘

membership and all activities in the Union for a period

of six years and fining him the sum of Thirty-five Hundred

Dollars ($3,500.00). The said decision is hereto attached

. to work and earn a livelihoo

od

l4a | Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

and marked “Exhibit 3”. The accompanying opinion

allegedly. supporting it is not based upon any facts or evi-

dence adduced at the “hearing”, and the — decision is -

contrary to law. Seay ; :

23. Plaintiff alleges that the+said charges | were -in-

--stigated by, and the said decision was controlled by defend-

“ant Maloney, all of which was done in bad faith and for

improper and illegal purposes. .

24. As a consequence of the aforesaid deciston, plain-

tiff will lose valuable property rights, including his posi-

tion as President and Business Manager of Local 542; his

interest in the assets of Local 542 and his right to benefits -

from the various funds and projects, inter alia; his right —

ill be aren weedareee

impaired.

25. As a direct result|@f the said decigion, olaintiff |

Underwood ‘will be precluded from carryin& on the func-

tions of. the office to which he was elected by the member-

' ship of Local 542. er

26. By reason of the aforesaid wrongful action, plain-

tiff Underwood has been irreparably ‘damaged in-his repu-. —

tation, particularly among people in his chosen occupation -

and his earning capacity will be very materially impaired,

for ich plaintiff seeks ‘compensatory and exemplary

ee | in the sum of Two Hundred ‘Fifty seaeane :

+. Dollars’ ($250,000.00),

WHEREFORE, plaintiff,’ ies withoyt siete

_ remedy at law and being i in need of immediate relief, prays

you Honorable Court-as follows: —

| (a). that defendant Maloney and the ‘peiebidtona’

Union be enjoined from enforcing its decision rendered on

September 24, 1952, and that the said cision be reversed

and voided;

(b). that plaintiff Ueiaiw ood be restored to his posi-

tion as President and Business Manager of Local 542 with

the right to conduct the affairs of: the said Local Union free |

from interference by defendants;

s

hd

Amended Complaint (No. 14 398) | _ Lda

(e) that the defendants be restrained from interfer-

_ ing in any way, directly or indirectly, with the plaintiff in

the performance of = duties as President and Business

* Manager of Local 542 ‘

(d) . by fa, damages | to the plaintiff in the

amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,-

~~ 900: 0015 - na oa

¢e) such other ‘ea plthier relief as the plaintiff may

be entitled to receive in the premises. |

. * . FREEDMAN, LANDY AND LORRY

By ABRAHAM E..FREEDMAN,.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Exhibit 1 ae a

To the eee Executive Board,

International Union of Operating ecitaii, |

‘1003 K Street, N.W.,

. Washington, D. C.-

_ In re: Local Union 542, International Union of

“ Operating Engineers

‘Philadelphia, Pa.

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

-An ‘important: matter which I desire.to bring to the |

attention of the General Executive Board has‘to do with

the filing of a very serious lawsuit by Brother Roy J. .

Underwood and his-attorney against the International, ‘its

+General President and General Officers.

Charges in lawsuit’ alleged misdonduct on the part. of.

the General Officers, alleged improper and illegal con-

_ spiracy with third persons, alleged: improper relations be-

tween J.. Howard McGrath and the General President,

alleged violation of the Clayton and Sherman Acts through

a conspir acy by the General President to defraud the mem-

bers. :

16a . - Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

The lawsuit presents afi outstanding example of a

y document which defames our. General Officers. Here was.

a triple violation of the Constitution‘ of our International

- Union by Brother Underwood, who as President and Busi-

- ness Manager: of Local Union 542 was supposed to know

the rules of the organization, and these violations were :

1. The deliberate defying of the Constitutional au :

thority of the General President.

2. Circumventing the Constitution by filing ‘a lawsuit

when no complaint or . charge had been filed within the

International Union. ve

3.U sing the law suit as a’ means, to charge the Gen-

eral President and his fellow officers with the most repre-

hensible, derogatory and illegal conduct and then when full

publicity had -been_ attained in the lawsuit, to dismiss it

with prejudice showing ‘the utter baselessness of the alle-.

gations,

I charge that. Brother toy Underwood, in assisting .

in the preparation of this lawsuit, in verifying and filing

Jiterature of a defamatory nature against ou

it in the court and thereby causing it to become: public

property with notices-in the newspapers, has published

General

"T, Section

Officers contrary to the provisions of Article }

_ 1. of the Constitution ‘of the. International Unign of Operat-

ing Eneineers and that this is a matter W) 1ich concerns

every single member of our organization ahd is so serious

as to deserve the attention of the General Executivé Board

of the International Union of Operating Engineers to

whom this subject is respectfully. directed. .

. Fraternally yours,

va ae _» WILLIAM E. CARTER,

: : | mn Hearing Officer.

August 30, 1952

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) |. Ta

_ Exhibit 2

ANSWER TO CHARGES

To The General Executive Board, -

International Union Operating Engineers,

1003 “K” Street, N.W,,

_ Washington, D. C.

In The Matter Of Charges Preferred By William E.

Carter Against Roy J. Underwood

Roy J. Underwood, President and Business: Manager

of Local Union 542,-542A, 542B and 542C, of the Inter-

national: Union of Operating Engineers hereby answers

the charges preferred by William E. Carter, dated August

30, 1952 and served on. September 5 5, 1952.

1. It is denied that I defied the Constitutional author-

ity of the General President at any time.

2.-It is denied that I have circumvented the Consti-

bores by filing a law suit. 7

It is denied that I have used the law suit as a means

to ae the General President and his fellow Officers

with any responsible, derogatory and legal conduct; and.

it is denied that by dismissing the law suit I admitted that _

the allegations contained in the Complaint were baseless

; 4: It is denied that I have published literature of a

~ defamatory nature against our General. Officers: contrary .

to the provisions of Article XVI, Section 1 of the Constitu- -

tion of the International ‘Union of Operating Engineers.

The foregoing charges arose out of a controversy be-

tween the Local Wnion and certain Employer Associations

as a result of which certain employers succeeded in creat-

ing internal. strife between the International.and Local

Unions which led to the institution of these charges. The

facts giving rise to the controversy and to these charges

may br‘efly. be stated as follows:

There are approximately 625 contractors within ie

jurisdiction of Local Union 542 which covers the Eastern

.@

ae a. fs

18a Amended. Complaint (No. P4,398) \

‘half of Pennsylvania and the State. of Deliiware. ‘Of this

number .98 contractors, whe employ operating engineers,

belong to three contractoy associations, p esti r re-

ferred to as the Employer Associations. The remaining

580 contractors are hereinafter referred to as a ie

Contractors. The employer - associations, prior-to. May 1 ;

1952, employed about 350 members of the Local which rep-

resented slightly less than 10‘ -of the membership of the

Local, which totals approximately 3800 members.

Between May 1, 1951 and May 1, 1952, the Indepen-

dent Contractors operated under an agreement with the.

Local Uniori voluntarily entered into between. them. The

Employer Associations, however, operated under an alleged

agreement which was never signed by the Union represen-

tatives or ratified by the Union membership, nor approved

‘by. the General President as required by the Constitution,

but which was preliminarily held to be valid dt a prelimi-

nary hearing in Court. On the basis of that agreement the

Employer Associations operated at a rate of pay of 25¢

per hour less than that whieh all the independent contrac-

tors were paying in the same area, even though the higher

rate had been approved as prevailing by the Davis-Bacon

. Section of the.United States Department of Labor. Prior

to the termination'of the alleged cortract. with the Em-

ployer Associations and the contracts with the indenendent

_ contractors, notice of termination was submitted by the

Local Union to all contractors, with the request that nego-

tiations be undertaken to effect a new agreement. Prior

to the expiration date the Local Union reached an agrée-

ment with a Negotiating Committee for the independent

contractors and a new contract. was signed, covering the °

period from. May 1, 1952 to May 1, 1953. The Employer —

‘Associations, however, refused to bargain with the Local

Union representatives in good faith and were unable to

reach any. agreement.’ As a consequence, the membership

of the Local Union voted to strike against those contractors

whod were members of the three Employer Associations

e

nD Wig alti eat a dm nema aes RNS eke dans 5. mcd

. aad Se2 St fate

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) | 19a

- until such time as an agreement could be effected with the

said associations. : ace

As a direct result of the agreement entered into with — |

- the independent contractors, there was very little unem-

ployment resulting from the strike against the Employer

- “Associations. Most of the 350 men who had been employ ed

by the Employer Associations were ‘given employment by

. independent contractors. ‘Approximately 100 men remained

out of. work intentionally for the purpose of picketing in

order to make the strike against the Employer Associations

effective. These 100 men were paid strike benefits from a

fund created voluntarily by the membership of the Local.

As a result of the action of the Local an effective strike was

conducted with no hardship to the members of the Local.

financial or otherwise.

The Employer Associations, through their chief rep-

resentative, Mr. Harry R. Halloran, attempted repeatedly

-to create friction within thé ranks of the Local membership

by sending out many, highly improper letters and by per-—

sonally soliciting individual members; a so-called. rehel

faction, consisting of a\handful of disgruntled. members,

was created through the.direct efforts of the Employer

representatives and severah -attempts were made to start

a “back-to-work”. movement and to create disunity within

the Local. All of these manipulations by the Employers

were ‘overwhelmingly and decisively; defeated by the Local

membership -and the strike was “a anna unaffected by .

these manipulations.

. The strike received the sanction of the Building Trades

Council of Philadelphia which Council adopted a resolution

_ expressly acknowledging support and cooperation, approv-

ing and endorsing the strike. The various ‘unions affiliated

with the Building Trades Council carried out their pledge

of support and refused to cross the picket jlines at the -

various projects of the Employer Associations Contractors. |

The International Union fully endorsed and’ approved

the strike from the very outset and expressly approy ed the

- 20a Amendet Siiaiakes (No. 15,398)

various demands of the Local which were ‘the issues of

the strike. The very demands, such as the Pension Plan

and Safety Code, were matters which had been approved

and strongly recommended by the General: President at

the Convention immediately preceding this controversy.

‘The Third International. Vice-President assigned to this

area, Mr. John J. McDonald, throughout the controversy,

‘ kept.a careful watch on the proceedings and gave his full

support and endorsement on behalf of the International

in this struggle by the Local Union for improvement of ,

their wages and w orking conditions. |

After the strike continued for about one month aot the

efforts: of the Employer representative, Halloran, were re-

buffed by the Local, a substantial number of contractors .

broke.from the Employer Associations and came into the

Union office and signed the contract demanded by the

Local which contained the Pension Plan, the Safety Code,

Improved Wages, and a-number of other benefits. Other.

contractors communicated with the officials of the,Local

and stated that they intended to sign up very shortly but

that they were temporarily holding off because of Halloran’s

assurance that he was in contact with the International

Union, and through the International Union he hoped to

destray the Local’s leadership. ‘Counsel for the Employer

Associations admitted that he had employ ed Mr. J. Howard

McGrath, the former Attorney General, to communicate

with General Pr esident Maloney. The said McGrath con-

ferred with General President Maloney who thereafter:

communicated with the Business Manager of. the Local, .

Roy J. Underwood, and the General President advised that

he intended to send an observer. into the negotiations be-

cause it had been represented to him that the representa-

tives of the Local were refusing to negotiate with the

Employer Associations. Brother Underwood pointed out

to the General President that the International Vice-Presi-

dent, McDonald, was in the area and was constantly in

touch with the situation and he had already reported'that™

) .

/

——" ‘Complaint (No. 14,398) 21a

the Local representatives were exerting every reasonable

effort in order to effect: an agreement. The General Presi-

dent, however, saw fit to send as an observer into the

negotiations Brother -William Carter, the Business Man-.

ager of Local No. 825 from New Jersey. ‘ ’

.Brother Carter first came into the proceeding by com-

municating with Halloran, the Employer’s representatives,

and had certain discussions with him without advising. the

representatives of the Local and entered into certain under-

_standings with Halloran without the knowledge or consent °

Of the Loeal’s representatives. Thereaftér meetings were

arranged between Halloran and the Local’s representativ os

At these meetings Brother Carter did not furiction as an

observer, but on the contrary, sought to compel the Local

representatives to accept a contract which was acceptable

to the Employers and which was less than the basic agree-

ment which had been previously. entered into with the inde-

pendent contractors. Brother Carter rejected all of the -

‘Local’s demands, such as the Pension Plan,.Safety Code,

- Improved -Wages, and numerous other demands contained

in a rider which had. previously been submitted to the

Employer Associations. This suggested contract by Brother

Carter was intended to bind the’Local Union for a, period

of three years. A-copy of the proposal by Brother Carter

- as acknowledged by him and agreed to by the pai gh

_ and in-the handwriting of Brother Carter’s Secretary,

hereto attached and marked “Exhibit 2- A”. When Brothel

- Carter was reminded by the representatives of the Local

that his function was. simply that of an observer, he be-'

came highly incensed and broke up the meeting by stating

that he was himself going to write and execute the contract

for the Local. The Local representatives disputed the right

and authority of Brother Carter to write a contract for:

-_, the Local: > .:- | , 7 . | |

| - Thereafter President of the Local, Underwood, was

summoned to confer with the General President and in

compliance with the General President’s order, he traveled

: . : 2 ; ;

22a Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) -

whicago and rate | at some length with the General |

% ent. ‘hereafter the General: President summoned

ro

~ lasted for several days. At these conferences Local repre-

Sentative Underwood was urged most strongly by General

President Maloney to accept the proposal of the Employers’

representative Halloran, but Brother. Underwood would

- not abandon. “the demands of ‘the Local which. had. been > |

approved by the Executive Board and by. the membership -

_at large at a regular meeting. Brother Underwood offered

to submit certain of the demands’ which were in excess

of the basic contract, to arbitration, but the General Presi-

dent insisted that the Local’s demands bp reduced so that ¢

the Employer Associations would have a contract giving °

the Local membership less than that which was contained

in the basic agreement with the independent contractors, -

He insisted that any difference existing: between his sug-

_ gested proposal -and the’ basic-contract should. be submitted

to arbitratiow’ The General President refused to permit :

the issues of the Pension Plan, the Safety Code, the Im- .

proged Wages, and other demands contz,»ed in the rider

to. be. included within the proposed arbi ‘ation. Brother

Undeérwood explained the reasons for the demands of the’ ~

Local to the General President; as to the claim for im-

proved wages, the Local simply wanted parity with. ;the

ates of pay prevailing in New Jersey: since ‘the, cost of

living was higher in Pennsylvania than in New Jersey,

which is the adjacent area; as to the demands for a pension

plan and a safety code/ the Local was actually carrying

- out the recommendations of: the. General President which

- he had advocated for many years, and as recently as the

last Conventiori recently held by the International. Union

in April of 1952. Accordingly,- Brother Underwood would

-not accede to the.instructions of the Gener al President

that he now waive and abandon these demandé:of the Local.

The General President then terminated'the discussions and

advised Halloran and Brother Underw ood that the Local's

> ; ~

. ay .

ex-Carter and Mr. Halloran to the conference, which: -

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) ¥s 23a |

right tp negotiate a contract woud not be interfered with.

me Upon returning to Philadelphia a further meeting was

arranged between Halloran and the Local’s'representatives

_at which the Employe¥s refused to recede from the proposal

' “advanced by them in Chicago and refused to discuss such

issues as the Pension Plan, the Safety Code, and Improved »

Wages. .When the Union representatives insisted on dis-

cussing these issues, Mr. Halloran terminated the meeting

and thereupon reestablished contact between himself and

_ General Président Maloney. As a result of that conference

between Halloran and: the General President, the General

President telephoned Brother, Underwood and instructed

him to-present the Employers’ proposal to the membership .

of ‘the Local at a special meeting and he further directed

Brother. Underwood to state to the membership that he,

‘the General President, urged the adoption of the Employers’

& _s-proposal most strongly. In order ,to dispel any doubt re-

~ * garding the proposal which was advocated by the General

President, the Local’s representatives dispatched a tele-

gram to him requesting that he wire back the specific terni®

: _ which he directgd to be submitted to the membership. In:

"reply, the General;President transmitted a telegram.urging ©

the membership to accept the proposal of the employers. A

copy of that telegram is hereto attached and marked

- | “Exhibit 2-B”. pon ty a ed : .

| The proposal of the General President was submitted

té the Executive Committée of, the Local Union, which de- .

clined to accept the proposal, and it was thereafter sub-

mitted to’ the membership at a special meeting, held late

in the evening of August:5, 1952, and attended by approxi-

mately 3000 to 3500 members of the Local Union. The

General President: was represented at this meeting. by the

International Vice-President of this area, Brother John

McDonald, and by his. special representative.from Wash-

ington, Brother Hunter P. Whar'ton. The International —

representatives were accorded every respect by the Local

representatives and by the membership at large. They were.

,

‘

Se. Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

afforded full opportunity to address.the Local Sintiethio i

and to express the views and proposal of the General Presi-

dent: In addressing the *membership, the International rep-

resentative commended Brother Underwood for the efficient °

and proper manner in which he had conducted the affairs

of the Union. He stated, however, that the proposal of the

General President should be. accepted by the’ membership.

- Brother Underwood ‘also addressed the membership and

while he pointed out his own views ‘and those of the Local

Executive Board, he urged the membership to- give careful

and serious consideration to the General President’s prd- _

posal. When the matter.was put to a vote, the membership

_ voted unanimously not to accept the recommendation of the.

_ General President, but to continue to negotiate on the basis

of the original demands.

_ In the course of all.of these proceedings, Employer

representative Halloran was actively engaged in coercing _

and otherwise preventing the vast majority ef the con-

« tractors from entering into a contract with the Local Union.

t Was also apparent that Brother Halloran was not in fact -

“keeping the contractors of the Employer Associations fully

informed of the developments.. Repeated calls were made_

by ‘numerous*contractors, large and small, to the Local

representatives and it was clear that these contragtors

were not only silling, but anxious to'enter into the agree-

ment proposed by the Local, but were precluded from doing

so only by virtue of the measures of Mr.. Halloran and a

yvery small group of followers. Recognizing this anomalous

situation existing within the. Employer Associations, the

International Vice-President, Brother John J. McDonald,

undertook, on behalf of the International Union, to bring

the representatives of the Local Union together with all

.+ of. the contractors who. were disposed to enter into an:

agreement with the Local. He therefore directed letters

on behalf of the Inter national Union, to all the officers of,

the three Associations, pointing out that. Brother Under-

wood had the endorsement of the International Union be- ?

a tena) eee

Ae ae

.

tr

a a : ry

Bo a a (sas eens ad

a as Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) 25a -

2

hind him; that-he had a splendid record in conducting the

affairs of the Union and that he had been acting in the

- utmost .good faith in the conduct of negotiations with the

Employers. He then suggested that all of . these Officers

meet with Brother Underwood at which time he would be

pleased to sit in and-attempt to work out a solution to the ,

entire controversy. A copy of the letter of General Vice-

President McDonald is hereto attached and marked “Ex-

hibit 2-C”. . a , te, ,

Pursuant to the letter of General Vice-President Mc--

Donald, a number of calls from contractors who indicated

a willingness to reach a contract were received, and tenta-

_ tive appointments were made for a meeting to be held the

‘following Monday, August 11, 1952. Meanwhile, the Em-—

ployers’ representative, Mr. Halloran, upon learning of

-- the letter which had been sent by General Vice-President

McDonald, immediately communicated with General Presi-

_ dent Maloney on August 11, 1952“and on the date when a .

number of contractors had expressed théir willingness to

discuss the matter, General: President Maloney dispatched’

"an order to all officers and members of the Local ordering

‘them to return to work immediately, and ‘to accept the pro-

posal of the Employers which he had previously urged the

membership.to adopt.-A copy of the said order of the General

- President is hereto attached, marked “Exhibit 2-D”. The

said order of the General President threw the entire situa-

tion into confusion and nullified the efforts of General Vice-

President McDonald which had promised.to bring an‘im-

mediate solution to the entire controversy. |

The order of the General President of August 11.

1952ecreated a problem for the Local Union which placed

them on the horns of a‘dilemma. If they returned to work,

the strike, which had been successfully carried on for three -

and a half months, would be completely broken and any

expectation of being able to obtain’ a reasonable contract

would have been destroyed. On the other hand, although

feeling that the order of the General President was illegal

_. into, subject to the approval of

26a: Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

~ and exceeded his authority, no.redress could have been ob-

._ tained through the Union “channels.in time to prevent a

~~ complete breakdown of the Local’s position in the strike.

Accordingly, upon the recommendation of counsel for the

_ Local, a law suit was instituted in the United States Dis-

trict Court seeking to test the validity of the order of the

General President, this being the only redress available to

the Local Union under fhe circumstances.

Shortly before the ‘General President issued his or-

_ der on August 11, 1952, the Building Trades Council, for

‘some unexplained - reason, rescinded its endorsement of

the strike of the Local and attempted to’ force the Local

to accept the contract of the Employers. by threatening to

call their men -off any job whére an operating engineer

was employed. When the Local representatives refused to

accept the Employers’ proposal, the Building Trades Coun-

cil then withdrew. their membership from all jobs where

operating engineers were already employed. This action

constituted a direct violation of the Labor, Management. ~

Relations Act, being a secondary boycott, and it was illegal

and. violated the rights of the operating engineers. -Ac-

——_

cordingly, in the action which was brought in the Federal ‘|

Court to test the validity of the General President’s order,

the Local also asked for relief in‘the form of an injunction

. against the Building Trades Council to restrain them from

discriminating against the Operating Engineers. The mat-

ter came on for hearing on August 14, 1952, iri the United

States District Gourt for the Eastern District of Pennsyl-

vania and, ok after the proceedings were opened the

Trial: Judge stated that the matter should be settled, and

to that end he iecessed the proceedings and thé parties pro-

- ceeded to his chambers where settlement negotiations were

undertaken under his direction. After two days of vigor-

agreement was entered

e membership. That agree-

representatives of the: Local

ous collective bargaining cl the Employers and the .

ment -prov ided that: all the issues, an 2 one; should be |

’ Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) | 27a.

| submitted to arbitration. The Local’s representatives were

_* suecessful in having the Pension Plan, Safety Code, Im-

proved Wages and other demands, included within the pro-

posed arbitration. The only issue which was kept out of the |

arbitration was the one relating to retroactive pay. When

this issue came up, counsel for the International Union in- ~

tervened in the proceedings, and threatened to invoke super- —

vision over the Local. As a direct resuft of that threat the

_ issue of retroactive pay was withdrawn. The International

Union withdrew its threat to invoke supervision only after

the issue of retroactive pay was withdrawn. The proposed

settlement was submitted to the membership of the Local |

Union at a special meeting called on Monday, August 13,

_ 1952. The proposed ‘settlement was strongly recommended. |

by Brother Underwood, the President of the Local, and, after °

full discussion by the members, it was adopted by the mem-

bership. Pursuant to that agreement, the strike was im-

mediately terminated and the members of the Local Union

returned to work the next morning, August’19, 1952. The

representatives of the General President were present at

the meeting when the membership voted to accept the pro-

posal and were fully aware of the return to work the fol- .

lowing morning. During the morning when the men had

returned to work, on August 19, 1952, at 10:00 a.m.; coun-

sel for the Local Union made a report to the Court of the

action of the membership taken the preceding evening in

approving the proposed stipulation, and advised the Court

further that the men had returned to work, pursuant to

the proposed agreement. The litigations were then and.

‘there settled in the usual manner by marking them dis-

missed as required by the rules of Court. ae

Later on during the same day, August 19, 1952, at

about 3:00 p.m., the General President’s Order invoking

supervision, “Exhibit 2-E” was served on the Local Union.

/ The reason assigned in the. said Order invoking super-

vision is that the General President considered it necessary —

_in order to put an end to the strike and terminate unem-

ployment. ‘it is undisputed that at the same time the said

28a dneoes Complaint (No. 14,398)

: Gein 3 was signed and served, the strike had already been

. terminated and the men had already returned to work. If

_ the reasoning of the General President: can be construed -

*~ as sufficient to invoke supervision the Order should never- .

theless not. huve-been invoked since the strike was termi-

nated the day before the Order wassigned and served.

Pursuant to the Order of supervision, Brother Hunter

_ P. Wharton, designed-as.the supervisor, has assumed con-

‘ trol over the affairs of the Local Union and has taken

charge of the arbitration proceeding. The said supervisor |

has precluded the representatives. of the Local from exer-

cising any control over the conduct of the arbitration. It

_Faverred that the International President is not in posi-

tiori to conduct or participate in any way in the said arbi-

tration, upon the ground that he has taken the unalterable

position that the Local Union is not entitled to a Pension

Plan, Safety Code, Improved Wages, or any other demands.

outlined ia the rider, all of which have now been included 2

within this arbitration by virtue of the insistence af.the’

Local’s representatives. It is obvious that the General

Fresident cannot now successfully maintain. a_ position

- different from the one which he had prev iously advocated,

The assumption of control over the arbitration proceeding |

is in violation of the understanding existing at the time |

the agreement to arbitrate was entered into and it is with-

out authority or consent of the Local membership.

The supervisor sought consent of. the Local Exectitive

Board on Monday, September-8, 1954, but the said Board

declined. to give such consent. The assumption of control

over the arbitration violates the Local members’ rights

to bargain collectively in their own behalf as is guaranteed

hy the International Constitution and by the laws of the

United States,

From the foregoing circumatances, it is. evident that

" T have not defied the Constitutional authority of the Gen-

eral President in any manner whatsoever, nor have I at-

tempted to circumvent the €onstitution ar use the law

Pi i ie Sd . ae

ecole At p Stewie B

Amended Complain (No. 14,398) ~ — 29a -

suit as a means. \ to cast any. reflection upon the General

- President or any of his fellow Officers. On the contrary, I

have at all times conducted myself with due regard for the

Constitutional authority of the General President. The

institution of the law suit was intended only to preserve’

the rights of the local membership, under the advice .of

counsel. The law suit was not designed to defame. the

character of the General President or of any other Officer

of the International Union. The filing of the law suit can- -

~ not be construed as publication of literature of a defama-

tory nature against the general Officers contrary to the

provisions of. our International Constitution. and it was

never so intended.

‘The General President arid the General Vice-Presi- x

_dent assigned to this area have many times expressed com-

plete satisfaction and confidence in the manner in which

I have conducted the affairs of the Local Union. I have

always fully protected and advanced the interest of the

International as well as the Local Union. The General

‘President will verify that I have gone beyond the call of

‘duty in attempting to bring with the’ ranks of the Inter-

national Union, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Associa-

tion, whose membership the International Union has sought

for many years. In other respects I have demonstrated

my .complete loyalty and. devotion to the International

lnion as well as to the Local Union of w hich I am President :

and Business Manager. The fact that I haveé- disagreed

with the General President, as. has been heretofore out-

~ ined,- is not to be taken as a symbol of disrespect or in-

subordination. ‘The right to disagree with the Interna-

tional representatives is a right which is guaranteed to

- every member as an American citizen - ‘and it is inherent

in:our American democratic’ form of Government.. There

is nothing in the International Constitution Ww hich conflicts

with that basic right guaranteed by’ the Constitution of

the United States.

Vee

>

a

80a. Amended Complaint (No..14,398)

It is accordingly respectfully submitted that the

» Charges which have been preferred by Brother William E.

Carter are entirely unfounded and should be dismissed.

Dated: September is, 1952"

ROY J. UN DERWOOD,

President and Business Manager ©

Local 542, 542A, 542B, 542C

Of the International Union of

Operating Engineers

Exhibit 2-A

SUGGESTIONS | BY’ MR. CARTER AND AGREED TO

1,

2.

BY EMPLOYERS ‘

Add addenda to Employers’ last agreement which would -

provide:

Increase for Oilers _ Operators to be 39¢ for highway

work.

ig Increase for Oilers ae Operators to. be 10¢ for heavy

building work.

. Re-establish our Welfare Furd and then agree to merger

of 2 welfare funds.

. Master mechanic. will be employed when 7 or more re-

volving rigs are used by Employer on 1 job. .

. A limitation on number of compressors to.be operated

~ by one man this limitation to be a compromise be-

tween our desire for no limitation and that of union

as could be worked out by Carter and Halloran).

. 3 year contract to be re-opened only for wages at end —

of 18 months—-escalator clause for this to be based on -

change of cost of living index—if change is more than

10° then change in ‘rates would be the amount by

which cost of living index change exceeds 10%.

Continue tide clause as in our last agreement (6 A.M.

to 6 P.M.).

Both sides to withhins all law suits (this includes union -

demand for retroactive. pay)—or allow law suits to

_ stand -to be settled in court. 9

ene

? ;

jong , * ee Pe ee ee enna

REE Nt FR RAO SRE eR ee ty

USS Bae S

Amended Complaint (No..14,398) 31a .

oe Exhibit 2-B

~ WESTERN .UNION: TELEGRAM |

W. BMA014 Long PD- BM Washington DC 5 1140A—

Roy J Underwood, Bus Mgr, ‘Local Unio 542—

121 North Broad St . Phila—.

Your telegram received this morning August 5. You .

are well acquainted with the pr oposal of the contractors |

_and the only differences of opinion are the questions in the -

agreement you now, have with the Independent Contractors

which are as follows:

Last part. of paragraph 2 of article 3, ‘eondigilttlon

definitions, on page 4. The wording of handling steel and

stone in’ article IV, wages and conditions” applicable to

building construction; the question of interpretation of

section 16 and page 10 and the addition of the word pile- .

driver in wage scale in article V.on page 11; also section

14 on page 16 which is a question of interpretation and

the question of handling steel and stone on page 17 under

.* wage scale§ also, section 14 and page 22 needs to be inter-

preted.

The contractor has agreed to consolidate ‘the finde of |

the welfare funds without a lawsuit and without going to

court and costing the Local union any. money to settle this”

dispute.

These differences in my. opinion are not sufficient to

-eause a protracted strike of over three months,

-+ Tam in receipt‘of a telegram from the building and

construction trades Council of Philadelphia informing me.

that there are 6500 of their members who are out on strike

on account of the action of our Local in Philadelphia. I hope °-

Local #542 acts favorable on this. question and immedi-

ately so we can let the other 6500 men that are walking.

the streets have an opportunity to make a living for them-,

selves. and their families. Please notify me immediately

the results of your meeting. — ,

WM E MALONEY . Gen President

32a Amended Cémplaint (No. 14,898)

Exhibit 2-C

etc INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING .

el 4 _ ENGINEERS _

Affiliated. with tiie American Federation of Labor

JOHN J. McDONALD

Third General Vice President

Midas eae | Broadwood Hotel ;

“ — * “Philadelphia, Pa.

Aah, 7, 1952

-

| Dear Sir:

This letter is intended to bring aboitt a termination

of-the work stoppage presently existing in the construc-

tion industry insofar as it concerris the operating engineers

in this area.

My investigation into this: matter. reveals that the r

Contractors who are members of your Association are com-

pletely confused and ‘uninformed about what has been tak-

ing place in the way of settlement negotiations.

The information received by your members from your

_ negotiating committee is to the effect that it is impossible

- to do business with’Mr. Underwood and _ he will not

“honor an agreement once it is arrived at.

’ | wish to state to you, without reservation, that this.

information is absolutely false and it apparently w as sub- |

mitted to your members in bad faith for the purpose of

preventing any contract from being entered into.between

thé parties. |

/ As the representative of the International Union in

this‘area, I have followed this matter closely. and carefully.. @

7 From my own personal observation, I-can state that Mr. ©

Underwood has given unsparingly of his time and has ¥

exerted-every éffort to. settle this dispute in the utmost

good faith. What I have learned from the Contractors,

who are members of your Association, indicates that they

have not been given the correct information either about

UY

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398 ) 33a

_Mr.: Underwood’s actions, or about the suggestions which

he has made in attempting to settle this dispute.

Because of the extraordinary importance of this mat-

ter to you and to the individual contractors who are mem-

bers of your Association, I strongly recommend that your

Board of Directors arrange-to meet at the earliest possible

moment with Mr. Underwood and his committee and you

can then determine for yourselves whether the information ‘i

you have received is-correct. rk

It may be of interest to you to know that’ Mr. Under-

«

_ Wood has negotiated and consummated collective bargain- °

ing agreements with seven’ Associations throughout the

jurisdiction of our Local Union without any work stoppage ©

and in addition, has negotiated eontracts with the Warner

_.Company, Liberty Corporation, and the Negotiating Com-

mittee for Independent Contractors representing 160 Con-

_ tractors in .the Philadelphia area. The total number of

Contractors bound by the contracts referred to well exceeds

500. The-wage increases in the areas outside Philadelphia

have now: beey approved -by the Construction Industry

Stabilization Commission ° and all these contractors are

proceeding with their construction without, -” interrup~

~ tion in work.

__ It may be that your present representatives have

failed to inform you.of the true state of affairs, and if this

is so it is extremely important that you take immediate

steps to ascertain the true situation. It seems to me your

own welfare demands that you find out for yourselves what

has beer’ taking place and the best way to find out is to

_ meet'face to face with Mr. Underwood and his committee

and determine what‘can actually be accomplished in the

way of a settlement. I should think that we are all adult

enough to put aside petty grievances and. fears and meet

. this situation squarely. .

‘ Should: vou desire it I would be pleased to sit cin at

such a conference between you Board of Ditectors and Mr:

Underwood and his Committee and lend my good offices

34a Amended woe ta cagtcat (No. 14,398) ',

in attempting to work out a solution to this- controversy.

If you feel that I can be of any service in this matter,

please feel free to call me ‘at the Broadwood Hotel, Phila-

delphia, Telephone No. Rittenhouse 6-6800.

is Yours very truly,

\ JOHN J. McDOonALp,

\ 3rd Vice President

: Exhibit 2D é

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING

ENGINEERS

Affiliated with: the Américan Federation of Labor :

q _, Telephone National 9265 pou int

Br Carpenters’ Bldg., 1003 K St., N.7W. .

) Washington i, DB. ¢. aie

| Office of ms General President | Los

* : August 11,1952.

~ Officers and Members of Loéal Union =54 42 and Branches.

"Attention MR. ROY J. UNDERWOOD

"GENERAL PRESIDENT’S INSTRUCTION

TERMINATING STRIKE

Dear Sirs and Brothers : |

_ The public interest together with the best interests

of the rank and file of Local Union +542 and its Branches

and of the International Union of which it is an important.

part recagnizes that prompt action be taken to return its: .

membership, which has been ‘out of work sin-e’ May 1,

(1952, batk.td their jobs. ~ .

~ As a result-of the conference between the parties ‘at

my Chicago office and from other infor mation before me

it is evident that-the few differences between ‘Local Union

=542 and the Employers Contractors Associations have .

‘now been reduced to a point where facilities for agreement

iad 9

We EVES Bia he DC Tee

?

NS Rene La a OMe oe

Be ee RAR ES

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) — Bha

are available and can be used, making it unnecessary and

_ inadvisable to further continue this strike.

Now for the first time in the history of this or guniza:

tion we have been officially notified that the 6500 members

of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Phila-

‘delphia, who have been thrown out of work since May 1

as a result of your strike, have taken drastic action, re-:

_ fusing to work on any. job with any operating engineer.

These men together with the members of your Local Union

have been walking the streets for over 13 weeks and now

the majority of them want this strike ended and to return

to work. There. is no justification for tlie continuance of

this strike when the:means of settlement upon the narrow

issues discussed are available.

ORDER

‘As General President of the International Union of

vpens Dee I hereby order-all members of Local -

Union 34542 and its Branches to promptly return to their

wor k forthw ith.

I further direct and instruct Roy Underw ‘aa as Presi-

dent and Business Manager .of Local Union *=542: to im:

mediately end the current strike and tp promptly issue”

, Notice to-the membership thereof within twenty-four hours

from the receipt of this letter, and I further request that

~& Ga

‘he immedfately advise my office on receipt of this Order

of his intention to cooperate.

I further direct and: instruct the officers, committees

and members of .Local Union +542 and its Branches to.

comply with these Orders and. to cooperate in carr ying out —

the intent and purpose thereof. .

I.further direct and instruct Local Union +542 "to

promptly enter into and pursue negotiations with:the Em-

ployer Contractor Associations, per the substance of my

telegram to Roy Underwood of August 5, 1952 and upon

the basis of the understanding informally reached ‘at the

Chicago conference between the parties.

You will take notice of — foregoing Order issued

i

3

a2

e?

i«

36a. Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

by me as General President = authority conferred by

tne Constitution of the International Union of “Operating ¢

Engineers, and govern: yourselves accordingly.

Fraternally. yours, —

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING

ENGINEERS .

By WM. E. MALONEY, General President

WEM: MEB |

» @

Exhibit 2- E

INTE RNATIONAL UNION’ OF OPERATING

ENGINEERS: |

Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor

Telephone National 9. 65.

| .Carperiters’ Bldg., 1003.K St.y N. W..

Washington 1,.D.C._. :

O-ffiee of the General: President es |

To the Officers and Members oy Local Ur nion 542 -and -

Branehes

Attention: ROY J. UNDE {Wood, President and. Business

"Manager and to All Those Whom This Letter May

_ Concern. —

Greetings: _ | ,

| Bore President’s Order invoking

International Supervision over

Local Union +542 and Branches.”

— reports ‘of conditions existing in the territory

of Local Union +542 coming to my attention it is apparent

-that'emergency action by your General President is neces-

sary and in my opinion the best interests. of the member-

ship of Local Union +542 and of the International Union,

vas well.as’the ‘Public Interest, require that such emergency

artige be immediately: -asserted and that Ir ternational a.

i) a” ae

Sh ht NEA Re ly, TERE

.*

‘2

a

:

”

g

os

Baa ae tir

ro)

-

——_ Complaint (No. 14,398) . 37a

Supervi ision ‘over the affairs of your ‘Local Union be tem:

porarily invoked. I find that an emergency exists. and that ..

this relief is necessary.

An irregular strike has,been declared and maintained

-by the officers of Local.Union +542 which has thrown. its

members out of work-since May 1, 1952: The continuance

of this striké has long been disapproved by ‘the Building

' Trades Council of Philadelphia whdse 6500 members have

been walking the streets unable to work because of your

action. We-now witness action taken by. the Building Trades:

condemning the continuance of your strike and ordering

their membership of 6500. to refuse to work upon any job

upon which any operating engineer is employed. gi

Strenuous effarts have been exerted by me to assist you”

in settling your differences with the Employer Contractor

Association. At my Chicago conference between the parties

the issues were simplified and the means. agreed upon to

settle them'but on your return to Philadelphia you took a

different attitude: I wired: you on August 5, 1952 advice

on settlement which has been ignored: On August. 11, 1952

| ordered the,members back to work and instructed you to

end the strike “and issue notice thereof to the membership |

within twenty-four hours and t\) advise me of your co- -

operation. These instructions. d¢livered to you at 3:00

P.M. August 11, 1952 have not been followed. The means

for the peaceful negotiation and settlement of your dif-

ferences with the Employer Contractor Associations haye —

been available to you but ignored. Your determination to -

_kee) members walking. the streets is unjustified. I believe

that a majorit\of fhe membership desire that the strike end -

that they be permitted te return to w ‘ork‘and they desire *

that Local Union 3542 negotiate and settle its differences

without -persdnal animosities. at the. conference table.

The Operating Engineers of. Phil: idelphia have lost

and “re continuing to lose public good will and prestige

through the conduct of this strike, resulting in ‘tremendous

inconvenience to the: “public and halting for many months

°

*.

_———

= ew a

ae -Ameuded Complaint (No, Ls 198) . i

the work upon miltione and millions of dollars of Public

“Works Yer a wide area. The Governor of Pennsylvania .

has personally appealed for resumption of work gn public *

projects, calling attention to the many strikes. instituted by

you in the past few years on. public ‘projects. Dissension

within the Local Union appears to be rampant—violence is

reported to occur at meetings—members seek to. withdraw _

and secure a separate charter and supervision is begged:

for by many. Thse are but a few of the conditions which -

appear to show that the administration of Loéal Union

+542 has-broken down and is at fault, and: convince me

- that the interests of the membership should not be jeopard-

ized by further continuance of these conditions.

ORDER INVOKING INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION

‘In accordance with the power invested in me as Gen-.

eral President by the Constitution of the: International

Union of Operating Engineers ! thereby place Local Union

542, its branches, officers, members, business and affairs

* under Interriational SuperVision effective forthwith pend-

ing a hearing before me as hereinafter designated.

I. further appoint, Brother Hunter Wharton .as. my

deputy and. International, Supervisor over. Local Union

=542 and its Branches and I direct him to administer the

business and affairs thereof,;and to conserve its assets to

the best of hid knowledgé and ability and as a trust solely

for the benefit of the membership to the end that the rights

of members will be‘protected; their property safeguarded ;

their affairs administered with fairness and igausiness-

like- manner, and that the Constitution, laws, customs,

Ritual end Authority be-recagnized and enforced by the *

“membership. He shall\appoint, subject to my approval,

such temporary assistantsyand officers pro tem, as may be.

deemed necessary for the donduct of business of tle Local.

The Presént officers of Local Union #542 are in-

structed not to interfere in the administration of the busi-

ness of Local Union #542 by Supervisor Wharton and are

= -

A me nded Complaint (No. 14,398) 89a

further instructed to turn over to the Local Union any”

_ property belonging to it which they are withholding.

“I direct that all Banks and .Depositories of Local

Union :#542, its Branches, officers and committees, give

full recognition to my Deputy, Hunter Wharton, as In-

ternational Supervisor in the premises and to honor the -

official character of his appointment.

_ I direct International Supervisor Wharton to keep

full records, to cause regular audits to be made by Certi-

- fied Public Accountants, to make true accounting of ‘his -

trust and be strictly accountable for his stewardship there-

During this emergency under International Super- +

vision the earned good standing of the members shall in —

no way be adversely affected, nor shall the rights of. mem-

bers in good standing to work be interfered with, and the

Charter of Local Union #542 shall remain in force undet

the protection uf Constitutional Supervision. ° |

NOTICE OF HEARING |

This order invoking International Supervision over —

Local Union #542: and Branches and appointing Hunter

- Wharton.as International Supervisor in charge thereof

shall.continue temporarily subject to a hearing at 1003 ;

K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C., at 1:00 P. M. August “

26, 1952, at which time and place -any and all interested 3

- parties may appear and show cause why these orders should

not be continued until further order or modified.

Notice of such hearing is hereby given to all‘interested

parties. Please take notice ther of and govern yourselves

‘xecordingly.. Issued under authority of the Constitution

-. of the International Union of Operating Engineers at

- 41:00 A.M. this 19th day of August, 1952. — »

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING

_ By WM. E. MALONEY, Goneral President Y

Ce

.

“ ° ¢

. . . Z

" : °

- - — : ~ 4

—_——— -~ ee RO -_ ~~ _-_ ’ = awd vy

‘ e . .

; _

- . s t en

. . >

’

a

o

‘

40a are Daseescarsie Complaint ae 14,898)

a Exhibit 3 - en

| CASE NO. 1 Continued

In the Matter of Charges against-Roy J. Underwood

This matter came on for hearing before the General

Executive’ Board in-the regular order of business before_-

the Board upon the writtén charges filed by Brother W. E.

Carter against Brother Roy Underwobod,: the written an-

swer and: defense of Brother Underwood, and a half-day

session was devoted to the matter on which witnesses were

~ heard and exhibits introduced and at the.conclusion of

- which both sides rested gfter announcing that no more

evidence was desired by either to be, introduced; where-

- .upon the General Executive Board took the matter under

advisement. At all times during the hearing on this mat-

ter, the General Executive Board was presided over by

Vice President Joseph J. Delaney and at all times during

- both the hearing of the case and the deliberations of the

General Executive Board which followed, General Presi-—

dent , Maloney refrained from voting: ‘on: the matter or .

the giving of any recommendations thereon to the Board. .

The following opinion and decision is reached as the

unanimous action of all members of the Board participat-

ing therein. :

The Board finds that the charges were valid charges

constituting violations of the Constitution’ and Ritual,

. that due notice had been given of the hearing, that copy

_of the charges had been furnished Brother Underwood and

same were adequately infermative, that Brother Under-

“wood accepted the right of the General Executive Board

to try said matter and that the General Executive Board

had jurisdiction over the same by virtue of the Constitu- |

tion: of the International Union of Operating Engineers

_with particular reference to Article XVI, Section 1, Ar-

. ticle XVI, Section 3, Article XVII, Sectior 3, and other

"pertinent sections, and the Ritual, and that at the close

ag ON A IN 5a Ae vee

Amended Complaint (No. 14,898) 4la

of the case Brother Underwood stated he had-had a fair,

full and complete hearing.. :

_ The Carter charges as filed charge Underwood with

three spécific violations of the Constitution, viz., (1). re-

fusal to obey orders of General President, (2) filing law-

suit when no complaint had been filed prior thereto with

any department of the International, (3) publishing litera-

ture of a defamatoryenature by allegations against General

President -and. Officers contained in lawsuit. To these

charges Underwood filed his answer, categorically denying

each charge and setting up 19 pages of matter foreign to

the issue. We have searched in vain for something therein —

constituting a defense to. the charges.as filed but nothing

appears.

The facts in this case show clearly that on A ae

11, 1952, Underwood was representing ‘ Local 25a) in

capacity of President and Peet ae Manager.

That on August. 11, 1952, General President Maloney

who were-on str ike back to work and to advise the General

President within 24 hours: of his intention to cooperate;

hour period filed a bill in equity in Federal Court charging

the General President with conspiracy and certain crimi-

. nally disgraceful activities, alleged .o be harmful to the

_ membership of Local #542.

Upon review of all the evidence the Board finds the

Carter charges are true and that Underwood is guilty as

charged of violations contrary to the provisions of the Con- ,

stitution and Rit: ‘al, in such cases made and provided.

The Board.finds that the Gener al: President had power to

issue the request of August 11th upon Underwood by virtue,

of his constitutional powers referred'to in Article VI, See-

‘tion 3, Neat “He shall have power to direct and super-

Local Unions, Local Officers and any other St b-

f the International U nion and membersX

vise all

division

- hat requested Underwood to isgue notice returning: men

that Underwood refused so to de-and refused to notify the °

General President as requested and within the twenty-four

«

42a Amended Complaint (No. ty 398)

ar F | The Board further finds that Underwood owed a duty

%

to obey the General President’s request of August 11,1952, :

by virtue of his obligation in the Ritual and by the mandate :

of the Constitution referred to in ArticleX XIII, Subdi-

vision 3, Section a, beginning: “Members of Local Unions

shall conform to and abide by the Constitution, Laws, Rules,

’ Obligation and Ritual and the dectsions, rulings, orders

» and directions of any authority of the International Union _

\ * empowered by this Constitution to make them,” and that . @

Underwood violated his duty as a member in this regard. 7

The Board further finds that Underwood was bound _

by his obligation as a. member by the provisions of the ;

-. Ritual and by the Constitution to refrain fromr filing any.

suit at law or equit% until and unless he had first followed

. and exhausted all. procedures provided within the Consti-

| tution for the hearing of complaints: as required by. Article -

VII, Section 3 of the Constitution. That in derogation of

— Sehis duty he made-to effort to file a complaint, or plea

within the organization but filed his action in court in dis-

regard thereof.

The Board further finds that the various ici of

illegal conspiracy on the part of General President: and

third persons to violate the United States laws to the dam-

_ age of the membership and also other’statements, as alleged :

in Underwood’s equity. suit filed August 12, were false.

and untrue and that the same constitutes publishing litera-

ture of a defamatory nature against an officer in violation

of the Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1, for‘which Un-

derwood is adjudged guilty and must be held responsible.

In reaching these findings the Board takes into con-

sideration the fact that it is common knowledge within

the organization that Brother Ujderwood had had much

« “experience in the litigation of wffion matters in the courts

~ of Pennsylvania, also that hetwas directly responsible for’

the preparation of the “Resistance Resolution” adopted by

his lo¢al-execufive board shortly before August 11, 1952,

authorizing ways and : ‘means for legal resistance: to any

. . e

.

pane GiPren ae oC FO oe - - > > - -~s: —-- ~

- ae

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) | ‘ 48a,

actiorwin. the event the International Union should attempt

to inject itself in the local strike situation. The Board fur--

ther takes into consideration the fact that Brother Under- |

wood. was a member of the.Law Committee of the 24th

General Convention of the International Union of Operat- _

ing “Engineers at Seattle, Washington, in April of 1952

and was actively interested in and better advised*on con-

stitutional procedure within the organization than most

> members and that while on said Law Committee he co-—

sponsored and recommended to the 24th General Conven-

tion that Article XVII, Section 3 of the weg re ceaain be

amended to read as follows:

“All Court ‘Actions ene

“No suit or other action, at law or equity shall be

brought in any court by any member, officer or sub-

division of the International Union of Operating. En-

gineers, until and unless all rights, remedies and

provisions’ for hearing, trial and appeal within the

organization shall have been’ properly followed and

exhausted by the member officer or subdivision com-

plaining: ;

Any member violating this provision, "shall, in addition

to the penalties prescribed “in the Constitution and

ritual, be automatically, fined the full amount of the *

cos‘s incurred“in the defense of any such action by -

_ the Union, together with such costs additional as the

‘court may fix or, assess against said*member. |

tHe said amendment was adopted and was in full force

- and effect at ‘all times described. herein.

Since the General Secretary-Treasurer has sepoinen

to.the General Executive\ sare that the International

’ Unidn has incurred necess: y legal expense in retaining |

counsel for the defense of red suit filed by Underwood in

the sum of $3,500.00 it follows ’.that said amount is duly

chargeable to Underwood and should be paid by him. - 7

’

44a Amended Complaint (No. 14,398)

Any description of conditions existing in Philadelphia

is a minor matter and-secondary to the main issues on the

charges before’ the Board but iri view of the fact that Un-

derwood had devoted much space in his written defense

and-in thé testimony of witnesses to existing conditions

we believe a brief statement by the Board is advisable.

' *The following clearly appears from the evidence: that

when the General President’s Order of August 11 was is-

‘sued Wnderwood’s. local had been on strike against the

three: contractor associations for 104 days, during which .

time negotiations for a new labor agreement were getting —

nowhere. ‘A contract with independent contractors had

' been entered into. The strike held up all construction work

- in the area, affecting not only the operating engineers ‘but

throwing 6500 merhbers of the allied Building Construc-

tion Trades ,out of work. Pressure of many kinds from,

‘many sources was daily ‘mounting, making final interven- :

tion by the International Union in the local picture not only |

advisable but necessary if the local deadlock, influenced as

it was by personalities and reprisals, was to-be amen

There is no doubt Underwood greatly resented the success

of the contractor associations in, securing through court

order a two-year extension,of a previous contract in spite

of Underwood's insistence that it could be extended for

' only one year and that this resentment apparently. affected

tgthe negotiations quite seriously.

There is no doubt ‘that an emergency existed justify-

. ing the General President in ordering Under wood and the

contractor associations’ representative :into~€hicago and

holding them in conference for several days during which

the General President was able to get more concessions for |

the men than Undéywood had been able to secure in the long

term of the existing strike. These-concessions secured were

(1 an overall wage increase of 40¢ per hour; (2) a-con-

solidation by consent of the two existing welfare plans;

(3) a point by point adoption of all conditions of the exist-

ing indenendent a agreement with. the exception

Amended Complaint. (No. 14,398 ) 45a.

of 4 or 5 minor points to be negotiated out between. the

parties on their return to Philadelphia and which, in view ~~

_of- what was at stake, were in the opinion of the Board

exceedingly minor matters. Thereafter thé parties returned

a)

to Philadelphia, negotiations were resumed and instead of 26i

confining the discussions to the matters agreed upon at *

Chicago. Underwood insisted on enlarging his demands and -

adding a safety code to the negotiations, resulting in a

disagreement and adjournment. ~~

In* the meantime the strike eomttiaed, pressure

mounted, the Governor of Pennsylvania proceeded to take

of dol

derwood to hire pickets from the Maritime Union and the

Building and Constructions Trades Council of Philadelphia

whose 6500 workmen were forced out of work adopted an -

order whereby ffone of its members could work on any job

on which an op@rating engineer was employed, presenting _

matters up with General President Maloney. Thousands .

lend of Local +542’s funds were being spent by-Un-.

a situation unique and unheard of in labor history. There ,

are other minor details in the picture as it existed but are:

- inconsequential. We have presented the main features as

clearly appear from the evidence before us and find the

C theredto be as stated.

There is nothing in the foregging ’ review of conditions

or the conditions Underwood describes which justify i in any .

‘manner the violation by Underwood of his duties “as con-

tained in the charges before usvor’excuse his a¢tions therein. —

In his. defense’ Underwood say that the purpose of his

suit against the General President and others was “to test

the validity of the order of the General President.” ead

ing for the moment the specific restrictions in. the Consti- .

tution prev enting him from taking such action and analyz-

ing his” motive, a question of good faith and credence im-.

mediately arises. How can any merit be attached to- such

an excuse when we witness a court action charging crimi-

nal. conduct on the part of the General President filed by —

U niderwood for the ostensible en of vesting ‘the power

>

7

°*S

“press.

46a gAmended Compla int ( we. 14,398 )

achieved and before any opportunity . was offered for the

‘executive to prove his innocence of the conduct charged -

against him? The facts show and the Board finds that this

_ suit was never designed for the purpose claimed by Under-

Ww ood but on the contrary was wholly manufactured by him

and constituted a vicious and reprehensible attémpt by

him: to discredit and defame his ‘superior officer who was

‘thereby wrongfully and’ publicly accused of criminally dis-

graceful conduct in a court proceeding and i the public

DECISION

Th. the Matter ie the Charges Brought by Brother Wm. E.

Cartey against Brother Roy J. Under wood

The General Executive Board finds that the defendant,

_ Roy J. Underwood was properly charged and tried in con-

formity to the Constitution, that he was duly notified and

. that he entered appearance t to the jurisdiction of the Board

by filing his answer to the charges and by appearing at

the hearing with his witnesses and announcing his readi- |

ness to proceed.

The General Executive Board further finds that Roy

J. Underwood is guilty of the:violations referred to in ‘the

charge in that (2) he defied the constitutional authority of - |

the Gencral President contrary to the duty imposed upon

_ him by the Constitution and Ritual (b) he filed a lawsuit

against the General Pr sident and the International Union

contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, Article XVII,

Section 3 and the Ritual (c) he ‘published literature of a

defamatory nature against the General President contrary

to the provisions of Article XVI, Section 1 of, the Constitu-

tion by ‘alleging criminally disgraceful and discreditable

acts and accusations of conspiracy to ne illegal things,

of an executive and then ubeirve Underwood. dismissing :

“his case with prejudice before the claimed purpose was

a te ee re Seng ee one eee ee Ce ee

”

ae | : an _

Amended Complaint (No. 14,398) : “41a

alleged to have been performed by. General President

Maloney as set forth in an equity suit filed by him “in the

U.S. Federal €Geurt in Philadelphia, Pa. on or about August

12, 1952, all of which-the General Executive Board finds

* the. facts to be.

: - Coming now to fixing the. penalty, it is hereby ordered -

that the defendant, Roy J. Underwood be and he is hereby

“nis $3,500.00 and removed from office forthwith: and sus-

pended from membership in the International Undon of

- Operating Engineers and all branches thereof for a period —

- . of six years from the date hereof, provided further however |

and it is so ordered that upon his promptly and regularly _

discharging his financial obligatfons to the organization

he be placed on probation for a period of six years, during ©

which period of probation he shall be barred from attend-

ing any and all meetings, local and othgrwise of the Inter-

national Union of Operating Engineers and further be —

barred from holding office or participating directly or in-

directly in any,.of the nominations, elections, campaigns,

gatherings or other internal activities of the organization,

. local and otherwise, and that during said probation period,

conditioned upon the strict observancé of the terms thereof .

as stated herein, the penalty of susp sion be and the same

‘is hereby conditionally stayed. . .” ae

It is further ordered. as a condition of said decision

and probation that in vie event there is any violation by,

Roy J. Underwood of the spirit and intent of the forégoing

probation order that then upon a finding of the fact thereot

by the General Executive Board the Board shall thereupon

order the decision and sentence into execution’ forthwith.

/s/ CHAS. B. GRAMLING, _ 7

General Secretary-Treasurer

So ordered this 24th day of September 1952,

7 a SR eo ae S.

Ble. Crepes, "Be . id

<se 8 48a, 4 a Amended C&nplaint (No. 14,347) |

“os, 2 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT “

Boy. | . — No, 14,547.) in 3

: HOMER DAWSON, GERARD LHONE, JAMES RUS. |

_ SELL, ROBERT. WALSH, COLOMBO. ACCHI- 9

_ ONE, EDMOND FARMER,

EDM( ICHAEL .CONCOR-.

DIA, NORMAN GALE, STA}

VLEY ‘KOSIOREK, ~

-, GERALD GILROY, JOSEPH MARTIN and CLAR-

| * ENCE SWEENRY, in their own behalf and on‘behalf .

aes . 6f all memdb rsvef Local 542 and its branches 542-A, >.

. . Ww pA bead eee fe . i ‘ .

. . 842-By and 48-C.-of the International Union of

Set . Operating Engineers: Ae ee |

- WILLIAM EK. MALONEY and AUNTER P. WHARTON,

individually, and as representatives of and on behalf —.

eo’ “Of the International Union of Operating Engineers’ ©. —

aes Plaintiffs above-named bring this action in their own

» behalf and in behalf. of all members. of ‘Loeal 542 and its » *

Rae branches 542-A, 542-B, and 542-C, who number jin excess

“hk * of 3800 men, .against the defendants, above-naimed, an@-'

ay allege: as follows: _ ae Se ee re a an

~ 1, Plaintiffs,. Homer Dawson :Edmond ‘Farmer, and».

Stanley Kosiorek are citizens and residents of the State of |

Delaware; plaintiffs Gerard Leone, James Russell, Hébert

Walsh, Colombo Acchigne, Michael Concordia, Norman

. Gale, Gerald Gilroy, Joseph Martin and Clarence Sweeney |, °

are citizens and. residents of the State of -Pennsylvania.

‘* All of said plaintiffs are now, ‘and, at all times rhaterial,.

hav “been members. in good standing of hocal* 542 Of! the:

Intérnational Union of ‘Operating Engineers.” ee |

i a 2. Local 542 /and its branches: Local 542-A, 542-B and’\..

a 9 re hereinaftef referred to as Local 542, is a labor union *. :

‘ whose members’ éperate all types of methanicdl and ‘hoist-. ~ ”

ing equipment stteh as cranes, bulldozers, pile drives, grad-

ers, compressors, —pumps and other similar equipment, in

_ the buildjng and construction trades industry, in interstate -

f ‘commerce, . ee Jee ene ® ;

o& a as “a oe , | -

6 : | ae

/ >

7 aN .

. ; : s , ce & a $ ; . .

Amendeg Complainé=(No. 143547) : 49a

3. On July 11, 1935, Logal 542 became affiliated with

the International Union‘of Operating Engineers, with the :

‘Tight to local autononiy, and as a distinct entity with its

_ own separate identity. The said Local was given exclusive

. jurisdiction within ‘the eastern’ half of Pennsylvania and

the State of _Delaware.

4. The International Union@@f Operating Engineers,

wit, ed referred to as the International, is an unincor- .

porat@® labor union affiliated with the American: Federa-

tion of-Labor, national in scope, with its principal place

“of business in“Washington, D.C.’ . ,

>

Defendant, William. E. Maloney, is a citizen and >

résident of thé State of Illinois. Said defendant ‘is the Gen-

..eral President of the International Union of Operating

-, » Engineers, having been ‘appointed to said4@ffice in 1940.

~ Unior of Qperating Engineers in these — ings.

6, Hunter: P. Wharton-is a citizen of Washington,

D. C., and is.an official of the International Union of

_ Operating’ Engineers ‘in the capacity of Assistant to the

_ General President. oe ais

¢. The said William E. Maloney and Hunter P. Whar- |

ten, and: each. of them, occupy a status as will insure ‘the:

adéquate. representation of. the defendant International

_'8. From thé time “defendant Maloney ass#ned office

in 1940,*he took personal contrél 6f ‘all Msets of Local

o42 and, personally, or through his agents, managed, and-

corducted the business and’ affairs of the said: Local, in’

Violation ef the Lecal’s rights to autonomy under the char-

‘ter granted by the International. Because of defendant

j 7 Maloney’s mismanagement of the property and affairs of

Rocal 542, a bill in, equity was filed in 1947 in the Court

of Common ‘Pleas No. 2, Whiladelphia County, December

- Term 1946, No. 3187,-as a direct consequence S£Avhivh the

so-called-supervision by defendant Maloney was terminated |

- of the Local. _ 8

by-court arder and‘an-election was held under the direction

of a Court-apnointed Master which resulted in the eléction |

of Roy J. Underwood as-President and Business Manager we

° * t 7 . . ies & ~

__ strike was: being carried on.

00a - * Aniended Complaint (No. 14,547 )

9. Under the leadership of Presidetit Underwood, the

business and affairs of Local 542 were conducted in a highly |

satisfactory and successful manner, in the best interests ; .

_) of the Unior®-and its membership-and in full accord with

~ the law. | Londen |

= 10. Shortly prior to May 1, 1952; Local 542, in the

- course of its. regular business, effected ‘a new agreement

_ With the majority of employers, to replace the existing con/ :

tract, which was. scheduled to expire on the latter daté. . -

However, no agreement could be ‘effected with a small .

minority of employers, as a consequeiice of which a strike

‘resulted against that minority group, conimencing on: May

i, we ore es ek ee

11. The said strike was authorized and direc&d by

a vote of the membership of Local 542, and it was conducted .

under the Jeadership ‘of the President and Business Man-

ager an@ the Executive Board of Local 542. ; |

12. The said strike was carried on with the full knowl-_ -

_ edge-and. consent -of the International, and it was officially”

assisted by. the International through its General Vice

President; John J. McDonald. : ° hs hes

‘13. After the strike had been successfully carried on

for a number of weeks and various attempts by the minor- .

itv group of ‘employers-to break, the strike had failed, cer-

tain representatives of the employers. made contact with

defendant William E. Maloney and improperly influenced

him -to“tse all of: hig authority and the power of his office

_ to break the strike’ of Local 542’ and to remove Underwood

- from office, = ee ero 4

: 14. Pursuant to an understanding with the employér

representatives, defendant Maloney brought pressure to -

* bear-upon President Underwood to terminate the strike

without the consent of, and without the vote df-the Local

membership, and to abandon the demands for which the

‘

F = “ e 9 ‘

15. President Underwood declined to call off the strike.

or to abandon the demands, of the Local without a vote of .

Amended Complaint (No. 14,547) °°. 5la

the Local membership. Defendant Malonet hon ordered, °

~ that a meeting of the Loedl be called and that the member -:

ship be advised of his, Maloney’s, instductions.

16. In complianee with the directieh of’ defendant

| res a meeting of the membership was held on August _

1952, ‘dnd the members: were then informed of defend-

en Maloney’s s demands. The membership voted to main-

tain their demands and to continue the strike. . ax.

17. Following the meeting: ‘of the membership afore-,

said, General :Vice-President McDonald, actin ng in his -

capacity as an International representative, attempted to

arrange for a conference between: the employers and the

- Local representative for the purpose of discussing the

demands of the Local and working out a satisfactory settle-

- ment. A true and correct copy of McDonald’s communica-

tion to-the employers is ae attached and marked “Ex-

hibit .1-C”’: ,

18. In.response to the ae éommunication from: Me-

. Donald, a meeting was arranged with certain of the em-

ployers, whereupon defendant Maloney, pursuant to a .con-

_ piracy with other employer representatives, caused said

meeting to be cancelled and he issued a written order to

break the strike ‘and compel the membership-to abandon

their demands. A true and correct copy. of the said order |

is ‘hereto attached and marked “Exhibit 1-D”. — ay

19. Beeause compliance with the order of defendant ’

Maloney would break the strike and destroy the Local’s

bargaining position, the Executive: Board of the Local

resolved to take immediate legal action to test the validity

of. defendant”:Maloney’s order. Accordingly, the Board

_ directed President Underwood-to authorize counsel for the

Local to institute’ immediate - legal action to restrain

"Maloney from enforcement of his order and ‘to test its.

validity.

20. Pursuant to the resolution of the Pinaities Board

. of the Local, a complaint was filed in the United States =»

. gsDistrict Court for the Eastern District of ‘en eciaeenae

« ° : ¥

— o2a - ~ Amended Complaint (No. 445547)

on August 12, 1952, entitléd Civil Action No. 14,071, seek-_

-ing a declaratory judgment and a stay of proceedings in

the meanwhile. The case came on for hearing before the

Honorable Allan K. Grim on August 14, 1952, upon a

motion for a preliminary injunction.. At the suggestion of

the Court, the proceetlings were recessed and the parties

* adjourned to the Court’s chambers’ in ordeg to explore the .

_ possibilities of a settlement.--As,a consequence of the dis-

‘cussions in chambers, a tentative settlemeng was.reached,

. Subject to approval of the membership, whereby the de-

_ mands of the Local were to-be submitted-to arbitration and

” the men to return to work in the meanwhile. The said set-

' * tlement proposal was agreed to by defendant Maloney, and

on August 18, 1952, the Local’s membership, at a special

meeting, voted to accept the proposal and to return‘to work

the following morning.. os . Cee.

21. The next day, August 19, 1952, at 10:00 a.m, —

_ counsel for Local 542 reported to the Court, with all par- >

ties present, that the Local’s membership had approved the -

agreement and had already returnéil to work. Immediately ©

_ thereafter, at about 11:00 a.m. the same morning, defend-

ant Maloney issued a new order “invoking supervision”

and he took immediate exclusive control over all the assets -

-and affairs of the Local and suspended President Under:

wood; without any hearing, from performing* any of the

functions of his office as President and Business Manager.

' A copy of the said order is héreto attached and marked

“Exhibit 1-E”. An appeal was taken by; the Local from ..

the said order to the General Executive Board but the said .

Board has failed to hold any hearing and has advised the

Local’s representatives that they will not be permitted the,

right of counsel-when such a hearing is held in the future. _

A true and correct copy of the appeal filed with the Gen- -

eral Executive Board from the order invoking supervision.

is hereto attached and marked “Exhibit 1”. :

22. The said“drder of defendant Maloney invoking

supervision was intended to, and did in fact, deprive the

o

Ca

G

re ne ee _ Ce a

6

: aa . > ‘ nl . : | {

. sa: Amended Complaint (No 145677 - 58a

- #4

Local of ‘the tight to make its ow ‘contracts with the em- ‘i

ployers;:and specifically it was designed to, and did.in fact, .

remove the arbitration proceeding from the hands of the

Local's officials to the control of defendant Maloney and

his representatives. Said defendant ‘Maloney thereafter

withdrew, or in effeet conceded to the employers all of the —

_ important demands previously presented by the Local, and

"for which the strike had been carried on. As a direct con-

sequence of defendant .Maloney’s actions, the membership.

not only lost all of the demands which they had made. ip)

excess of the contract then prevailing in the industry, but™

‘in addition they lost many valuable rights already con-

tained in the said contract.

23. The aforesaid actions and orders of . dedentant

Maloney were illegal, improper and i in violation of the Con- °

stitution and Ritual of the International Union and of the

Constitution and laws of the United States.. The said ac-

tions and orders violated, intex alia, the following provi-

sions of the International Constitution: Article I, Sec. 3,

which provides that each Local

distinct entity with its own separate identity; Artigle

XXIII, subd. 1, Sec. (d), which provides that-the,Execu-

tive Board‘of the Local shall be the policy-making tribunal

subject only to the approval of the Local Union; Article

XXIII, subd. 11 (e), which provides that contracts, for

the Local Union shall be made only by the representatives

‘of the Local Union and are subject to the approval and

_ ratification _ of the Local Union; Article XXIII, subd.

“11 (ec), ‘which gives the Local Union the right to call and

conduct a strike. The said actions and order were further

illegal and constituted usurpation: of power on the part of

defendant Maloney in that there is no authority to support.

such orders and actions in the Constitution under the cir-

cumstances; the said actions and orders of defendant Ma-

loney violated. the Federal and State Constitutions and

laws in depriving the membership of the Local of their

arp wagers property. rights, the right to contract freely

nd the right to strike; said actions and orders of defend-

eee

nion shall constitute a

\

"keg

dda > Amended Complaint (No, 14,547)

ant Maloney constituted a breach of trust-and a betrayal

of the International Union and of its affiliated Local Union.

| 24. Following his order invoking supervision, defend-

ant Maloney caused charges to be preferred against Presi-

dent U nlerwood alleging misconduct because of the filing .

of the lawsuit aforementioned. A hearing was held before

the General Executive Board of the International Union

on September 17, 1952, in New York, where President

Underwood was denied the wight to counsel although gen-

eral counsel for the International Union appeared as an -

advocate against him; the proceedings were not reported;

there was no examination or cross-examination of any wit-°

nesses; no proper evidence was introduced to support the

charges and no evidencé was submitted to dispute the truth

Yor the allegations contained in the complaint: filed in Court

by the Local Union. The General Executive Board did not.

render free and independent consideration and ‘judgment,

but it was at all times dominated, controlled and improp-

erly coerced and influenced by defendant Maloney; therg

‘was no due process of law accorded to President Under-

wood and the said proceedings did not constitute a hearing

within the meaning of that: term. A unanimous decision '

was allegedly rendered by the General Executive Board re-

moving: President’ Underwood from office, suspending him

from membership and all activities in the Union for a

period of six years, and. fining him the sum of $3;500.00.

The opinion accompanying the dgcision is not based upon

any facts or evidence addueed at the hearing and the said

' decision is contrary to law. ck ee .

25. After removing President Underwood from the

‘leadership and membership of the Local, defendant Ma--

loney installed his pérsonal deputy, defendant Hunter P.

Wharton, and. thereafter proceeded to revert to the same

type of mismanagement as he had exercised over the Local

during the period from 1940 to 1948. He has suspended all

meetings of the membership and prohibited. freedom .of |

speech and assembly. He has blocked off all avenues of

9

Aménded Complaint (No. 14,547) 55a

‘information through which the membership might become.

‘informed and has embarked on a campaign of cgercion and

intimidation of the member's of the Loeal, which is intended |

‘to prevent and eliminate all resistance and opposition to

' his management of the Local, its property and its member-

ae He has taken personal possession of all funds-and all | —

other.‘assets and property of the Local and has failed and -

refused to make any accounting to the membership; he has

assumed exclusive control over disbursements of funds and

other assets without regard to the knowledge, consgnt or

approval of the membership,, Substantial sums of money

and property have been diverted ‘to unknown persons and

sources, and the treasury is being yapidly depleted-and —

the assets dissipated. The contractors are permitted to

operate in violation of the, existing agreements, and par-

ticularly, inter alia, to pay lower rdtes than required, to —- -

_be deprived of working conditions required under the con-

tracts, to operate equipment without the required personnel,

and ‘to otherwise reduce job opportunities, wage rates,

safety provisions and working conditions of the members.

Unemployment among the members is mounting rapidly

because of the failure to properly police the jobs and enforce

the contracts; unauthorized collections of moneys are being

taken from members and are not accounted/for; certain of.

the employers are permitted access to the ¢onf{dential files .

of the Union in order to discriminate against j

the“Local and other émployers. F scien at speech and of

assembly among the membership of the Local are being |

‘. suppressed under threat of disciplinary action and violence ;

the death benefit fund, consisting. of a sum of approxi-

mately $120,000.00 has been taken over‘and improperly

| -\eonverted or appropriated by defendant Maloney and his

representatives; the welfare fund, in an amount of ap-’:

proximately $1,000,000.00, and the welfare plan have been

seriously impaired and the interests and rights of the mem-_

roo said funds and plan have been substantially

- - reducdd, impaired, and in some ‘instances‘completely de-

stroyed\as a result of defendant Maloney’s actions and his

: ° | RA . | ‘

56a _ Amended Complaint (No. 14,547)

management of the Local, chaotic conditions are being

created whjch are now and will hereafter cause irreparable

damage to the members of Local 542. |

_ * 26. Plaintiffs aver that defendant Maloney by his ac-

tions from 1940 to 1947, and during the current period .”

“from August 19, 1952, to the present, has demonstrated _

course of conduct showing that be is presently attempting

—_——to use the Local for his own personal interests; that. he

has ‘in the past and will in the future impair and defeat the

Local membership in the pursuit of their constitutional

__ rights to liberty and freedom and their rights to work, to:

strike, to conduct their own affairs and to manage their

own finances, and many other ‘constitutional rights. As a

result of defendant Maloney’s actions, the Local Unich has

fallen into-.disrepite, to the great loss and embarrassment

_ of the membership of the Local and of ‘all decent persons

associated with organized labor. ,

‘?

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs. pray your Honorable Court.

for relief as follows: fon ten

_ fa) by enjoining and restraining the defendants and

their representatives from exercising any supervision.or —

- control whatever over the property, business, affairs and

~ members of. Local 542: i |

(bi. by restraining “the defendants and their repre-

sentatives from interfering with the internal Management |

of Loen] 542% S ee: See

: te) by enjoining the. defendants and their agents and

representatives from engaging in any conspiracy or com-

bination relative to the business and affairs and manage-

Ment of Local 542 and its membggs ; a a |

(di) by adjudging and declaring the actions and orders

of defendant Maloney to be illegal and void, and enjoining: Ag

the defendants. from_ interfering with Local’ 542 and its:

representatives in effecting collective bargaining agree:

ments with employers Within the jurisdiction of Loeal:542:

‘e) by’ declaring legal and void all actions of all of —--z

° ERse es ey afl

SL py

a

Amended Complaint (No. 14,547) - 57a

the defendants and their representatives pursuant to thg

order invoking supervision ; - ; ;

tf) by ‘declaring null and void the-c ‘convictions against

President Underwood and by restoring him to Ris position

_as President and Business Manager of the Local Union,

and as a member in good standing of the said Union:

(g) by enjoining and restraining the defendants and

their agents and representatives from taking any reprisals.

against President Underwood or any other member of Local .

542 because of any participation in the lawsuit previously -

filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern.

District of Pennsylvania, entitled Civil Action No. 14,071,

or in this lawsuit, or in any other matter related to or aris-

ing out of the dispute between the International Union and

defendant Maloney and his representatives and the mem- —

bers of the Local 542;° ~ es |

(th) by ordering that the defendants make a . complete

accounting of all funds and assets taken over and-received

_ by them and.to-transfer all such funds and assets to Local

“542 under the control of the officers designated by the said

Loéal;

(i) by ordering and sicniian that the dethhiiniti and

.their representatives turn over to the plaintiffs: all books,

. records. and other property possessed or kept by them in.

connection with the —— control and oper ation of

Local 542;

(i) by rendering’ a declaratory judgment declaring ‘3

the actions and the orders issued by defendant Maloney to

be in violation of the Constitution and By ‘laws of the Inter-

national ;

(k) by rendering a iedscsteny judgment holding

_ those provisions of the Constitution of the Internatigyal

’ Union which may nstrued to support the actions hid

orders of defendant loney and the General Executive

_. Board to be invalid and void, as against the public policy

_ of: the United States and in conflict with the ccscaciammress

ey

ers

aka. ‘ Amendéd Complaint: (No. 14,947)

_rights of the Local Members as American citigefis, and as

-/ being in cénflict with the Constitution: and laws of the .

("nited States.and of the Commonwealth of Peasnsylvania,

(l) by granting.such other and further relief as’ jus-~

. . ~ os

tice and equity may require. ea

FREEDMAN, LANDY AND LORRY, . .”

By ABRAHAM E. FREEDMAN

ms a Exhibit 1

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF ©

‘GENERAL? PRESIDENT INVOKING

INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION OVER

LOCAL UNION 542 AND ITS BRANCHES

Roy J, Underwood, President and Business Manater :

of Local Union 542, 542A, 542B and 542C, of the Inter-

- national Union of Operating Engineers, in accordance with —

the provisions of the International Constitution, hereby ap-

_ peals to the General Executive Board, on belfalf. of the said

Local Union and its officers, from the Order of the General Z

President, dated August 19, 1952, invoking International,

supervision over the said ‘Local and its branches, and i

support of the said appeal avers, as follows:

The General President’s Order dated August 19,1952

invoking International siipervision over Local. Union 542.

and its branches, is predicated upon the assumption that a

strike existed at the time of. its issuance and the under-—

“lying: reason for the order of supervision was to éut off the

“strike and compel the membership: of the Local Union to

return to work. under conditions existing prior to the strike.

In answer to these contentions, it is averred, on behalf of

the Loe»! Union, that at the time the order of supervision

Was invoked, the General President already had knowledge .

that the strike had been terminated as the result of a settle- —

ment between the Employers and the Loecal Union: on: the

basis of which the members of the Local‘ Union had already

4 , %

Ss

£

Bh oe

re

. Amended Complaint (No. 14

gs |

ctibeied, towork. There ‘was, therefore?:no emergency as

would wpioea r from /Order i invoking supervision. and the

| reason dypignretf or ‘invoking the. supervision no longer ex-

isted, if iff (fact } stification for the-order had ever existed

: upen such ground/The facts giving rise to the entire con-

trovérsy may briefly be stated as .foilows: |

~ |, .«Therg are - Gpproximatels - 625 -contractors within the

_ jurisdiction pf: Local’ Union 54% which covers the Eastern

half of Pennsylvania’ ‘and the State of Delaw are. Of this |

number 98 contractors who employ operatyig engineers, -

belong to’ three contractor associations, hereinafter re-

ferred to as the Employer Associations. The remaining 530_

- contractors are hereinafter referred to as Independent ©

Contractors. Thé employer associations prior to May 1,

1952, employed about 350 members of the Loeal which rep-

resented slightly less than 10% of the membership 6f the

Local, which totals approximately 3800 members.

Between May 1, 1951 and May’1, 1952, the Independ- -

“ent Contractors operated under an‘agreement with the ‘Lo-.

'“ eal Union voluntarily entered into between them. The ~

| Employer Associations, however, operated under an al-

- leged agreement which was never signed bythe Union rep-

resentatives or ratified by the Union membership. nor ap- |

proved by the. General President as required by th®

~ Constitution; but which was preliminarily held te-be valid

at a prelimMmary hearing in Court. On the basis-of that

dgreement the Employer Associations operated awa rate

of pay of 25¢ per hour less than .that which all the inde-

pendent contractors were paying in the same area, even.

_. though the higher rate had beeri approved as prevailing by _

_ the Davis-Bacon Section. of the United States,Departm4

of Labor. Prior to thé\termination of the alleged contrac

with the Employer Associations and the contgacts. with the

independent contractors, notice of termination was sub-

mitted by the Local Union to all contractors, wish the re-

quest that negotiations be undertaken to effect a new

agreement. Prior to the expiration date the Local Union

rit ce s

é

—

)

=.

60a ah Amended Complaint (No, 14,547)

reached an agreement with-a. Negotiating Committee for

the independent contractors and a new contract was signed,

_ covering the period from May. 1, 1952 to May 1, 1953. The

Employer -Associations, however, refused to bargain with

the Local Union representatives in good faith and. were

a ubable to reach any agreement. As a’ consequence, the mem-

re)

rship of: the Local Union voted to strike against those

contractors who were members of the three. Employer As-

2 2. = . . . + . A <

~ , Soclations until such time as’ an agreement could be ef-

_ fected with the’said associations,

As a direct result of the agreement entered into with

_ the independent contractors, there was ‘very little unem-

ployment resulting from the strike against the Employer

Associations. Most of the 350 men who had been employed

_ by thé Employer Associations were given employment. by

independent contractors. Approximately 100.men remained

out of work intentionally for the_purpose of picketing in

order to make the strike against the Employer Associations

effective. These 100 men wer paid strike benefits from a 7

fund created voluntarily by a membership of. the Local.

As a result of the action of the Local an effective strike

~ was conducted With ne Hardship to the members of the

* Local, financial or otherwise. Fe AD

The Employer Associations, through their chief rep-"”

resentative, Mr. Harry R. Halloran, attempted repeatedly °

to create. friction within tke ranks of the Local membership

by sending out many: highly improper letters and .by*per- |

sonally : soliciting * individual members; ‘a so-called yebel,

faction, consisting of ‘a-handful af disgruntled. members, .

Was created through the diréct efforts of the Employer rep-

resentative and seyeral, attempts. were made to start a

~“back-to-work” movement and ‘to ‘create disunity . within

the Tocals. All -of these .manipulatiens by the’ Employers

were overwhelmingly and decisively defeated by the Local

membership and the strike was completely unaffected by

these manipulations. : Poet arate

~ The strike received the sanction of the Building Trades

Council: of Philadelphia which Council adopted a resolution

Amended Complaint ( No. 14,547 Oe 6la

| expressly acknowledging support and cooperation, approv- °

* _ ing and endorsing the strike. The various unions affiliated

with the Building Trades Council carried out their pledge °

‘of support and. refused to cross the picket lines at the

various projects of the Employer Associations Contractors.

Thé International Union fully endorsed and approved

the strike from the ‘very outset and expressly approved

_ the various deniands of the Local which were the issues of

the strike. The very demands, such as the Pension Plan:

and Safety Code, were matters which had been approved

and strongly recommended by the General President at

the Convention immediately preceding this controversy.

The Third International Vice-President assigned to this ” -

area, Mr. John J. McDonald, throughout the controversy,

kept a careful watch on the proceedings and gave his full

support and endorsement on behalf of the International in |

this struggle.by the Local Union for improv ement of their

wagés and working ¢onditions.

After the strike continued for about one ‘isionth and

the efforts of the Employer representative, Halloran, were °

rebuffed_ by the Local, a substantial number of contfaciors

broke from the Employer Associations and came into the

, Union office and signed the contract demanded by the Leeal -

which contained the: Pension Plan, the Safety Code, Im- |

proved Wages, and.a number ¢f other benefits. Other con-

tractors communicated ith the officials of the Local and

“stated that they intended to sign up very shortly but that

they were temporar ily holding off because of Halloran’s as- |

surance that . hé was in contact with the International

Union, and through the International. Union he hoped to.

‘destroy the Local’s leadership. Counsel f 1e Employer

Associations admitted that he had employed M). J. Howard

McGrath, the former Attorney General, to ommunicate

with General President Maldney. The said [eGrath con-

ferred. with General President Maloney who thereafter

communicated with the Business Manager of the Loeal, _

tov J. Underwood, and the General President advised that ;

he intended to send an observer into the negotiations be-

‘ saan:

af ae : - By

a -

wy

of = 06a |. S&F Amended Complaint (No. 14,547 )

a

_ cause it had been represented to him that the representa-:

tives of the Local we

ployer Associations.

re refusing to. negotiate. with the Em-

Brether Underwood pointed out to the. «:

‘ General President that the International: Vice-President eee

McDonald, was in the area and was: constantly in touch *

With the situation a

nd he had already. reported that they

Local representatives were exerting every reasonable effort

' In order to effect an agreement. The General President, _

however, saw fit to send as-ait observer into the negotia-

tions Brother. William Carter, ‘the Business Manager of ——-

<~ Local No. 825 from

New Jersey. - g

& Brother Carter first came into the proceeding by com-

municating with Halloran, the Empleyer’s representative,” ,

and had certain discussions with him without advising the

of the Local’s represe

-_représentatives of the local and entered into-certain.under-

Standings with Halloran without the knowlege or consent

ntatives. Thereafter meetings were ar-

ranged betweert Halloran and the-Local’s representatives.

. At these meetings B

observer, but ‘on the

representatives to accept a

~ the Employers and w

rother Carter did not function as an:

contrary, sought to compel the Local

Mtfact which was acceptable to

hich wa®té@s thah the basie agreement

. Which had been previously entered into with the independ- .-

ent contractors. Brother Carter rejected all of the Local’s +

demands, such as the Pension Plan,-Safety Code, Improved

Wages, and numerous other demands contained in a rider»

~» Which had previously

been submitted to the Employer Asso- -

ciations.: This suggested contract by Brother Carter was

intended to bind the Local Union for a period, of three years. .

. A photostatic copy Of the proposal by Brother Carter as °

acknowledged by-:him and agreed to.by the Employers, and .

- in the handwriting of Brother Carter's Secretary, is hereto

_ attached’ and marked Exhibit “A”. When Brother Carter

Was reminded by the representatives of the Local that his

function was simply

_Incensed and broke u

himslf going to write

of Brother Carter to

that of an observer, he became highly :

p with meeting by stating that he was

and éxecute the contract for the Local.

The Local representatives disputed the right and authority ¢

write a contract for the Loeal.

~The

aie i’ ¥

Amended Complaint (Ne. 14,547) —* - 68a

Thereafter President of the Local, Underwood, was

‘summoned to confer with the General President and in com- -

_ pliance with the General President’s order, he traveled to

5 ~ Chicago and.conferred at some length with the General

} _¢ Président. Thereafter the General President. summoned

4a Brother Carter and Mr. Halloran to the conference, whicli .

q - lasted for several days. At these conferences: Local repre- —

=~ °* sentative Underwood was urged most strorigly by General. °

a

24

3

a

-

° 3

ry

ot

As ie Des igi ae Akg pms

Bes sy Maloney to accept the proposal of the Employers’ -

~ ~~ -~representative-Halloran,—-but-Brother—-Underwood—would _ :

not abandon thé demands of the Local which had been

approved by the E; sitive Board and by the membership

At large.at a regular meeting. Brother Underwood offered

to submit certain of the demands which were in excess of .

- “the basic contract, to arbitration, but-the General. President .

E insisted that the Local’s demands be reduced so that, the ae

aa Employer Associations would have a contract giving the».

a: _Local:membership less than-that which Gxa’s contained in.

‘the basic agreement with the independent contractors..He —;

insisted that any difference existing between°his suggested. |

proposal and the. basic contract should be submitted to

: arbitration. The General President refused to permit the

2. “issues of the Pension Plan, the Safety Code, the Improved

Wages, and other demands contained in the rider to be in-

cluded within the proposed arbitration. Brother Wader-

' wood explained the reasons for the demands of the’ Local

to the General President; as to the claims for improved

wages, thé*Local simply wanted parity with the rates of .

pay prevai ing in New Jersey since the cost of living was #&

higher, in. Pennsylv ania than in New Jersey; which is thieg,

a adjagent area; as ‘to the demands for a. pension plan,and a

7 _ safety code, the Local was -actually carrying out the ree-

PN ommendations of the General President which he had advo-

cated for many years, and as fecently as the last Conven-

tign recently ‘held by the International Union in April of ~

ae 1952. Accordingly, Brother Underwood would not -

to the instructions of the General President that he

Waive and abandon these demands of the Local. The aac ,

i

~y sion .*

64a Amended Compleipe (No. 14,547)

‘ eral President then terminated ‘the discussions and advised

_ Halloran and Brother Underwood to continue negotiations

themselves. The General President assured Brother Under-

Wood that the Local’s right to negotiate a.contract would

-General President telephoned’ Brother Underwood and in:

“structed him to present ‘the Employers’ proposal to the

ther directed Brother Underwood ‘to state to the member-

i

ship’that he, the General President, urged the adoption of ;

the Employers’ proposal most Strongly. In order.to dispel

any doubt. regarding the proposal which was advocated by

the General President, the Lécal’s* representative dis-.

patched a telegram to him requesting that he: wire back

the specific terms whieh he directkd to be submitted to the

membership. In reply, the General President transmitted |

a d@legram urging the membership to accept the. proposal

of the employers. -A copy of that telegram is hereto at-

tached and marked Exhibit “B”’, ‘can

'_» The proposal of the General President was submitted

_ to the Executive Committee of the Local’ Union, which de-

clined to accept the propgsal,: and it was thereafter: sub-

~ niitted to the-membétship at a special meeting, held late™.

in the evening of August 5; 1952, and ‘attended by approxi-

mately 3000 “to: 3500 members of the Local Union. The

General President was represented at this meeting by the

_ Internation4l ‘Vice-President of this area, Brother John

J. McDonald, and by. his special representative from Wash-._

ql Oo é . é

se

ee ti i

fact-keping the contracto

fully informed of: the deve

>

Amended-Complaint (No, 14,547) | 65a

ington, Brother Hunter P. Wharton. ° The International |

representatives were accorded every respect by the Local

represenatives and by thé membership at large. They were

afforded full opportunity to address the Local membership

and ‘o express the views and proposals of the General

- President. In addressing the membership, the International

representative.commended Brother Underwood ffor the effi-

cient and proper. manner in which he had: conducted the ~

affairs of the’ Union. He stated, however, tliat the proposal

of the General President should be accepted by the mem-

bership. Brother Underwood also addressed the member:

. Ship*and while he pointed eut his‘own views and& those of

the Local Executive Board, he urged the membership 'p

give careful and serious consideration to the Genera :

President’s proposal. When the matter was put to a vote, .

the membership voted unanimously not to accept the rec-

ommendation of the General President, but to continue to —

negotiate on this basis of the original demands. Moe.

In the course of all of these proceedings, Employer

-rebresentative Halloran was actively engaged in coercing

. and\gtherwise preventing the vast m orityof the contrac-

- tors from entering into a.contract Qvith the Local Union.

It was also apparent that Brother Halloran was not in

the Employer Assotiations

ents. Repeated calls were

made by numerous contractors, large and. siftall, to the

Local representatives and it was clear that*these contrac-

tow were not only willing, but anxious to enter into the

agreement proposed by ‘the Local, but were precluded from

doing so only, by virtue of the measures of Mr. Halloran

: : , , ; ee °

anda very small group of followers. Recognizing this ano-

‘malous situation. existing within the Employer Associa-

tions, the “International Vice-President, ‘Brother John J.

‘McDonald, undertook, on fehalf of the International Union,

to bring the representatives of the Local Union. together

With all of the contractors who were disposed to enter into’

an agreement with the Local. He therefore directed letters

on behalf Sf the International Union, to all of the officers:

a

of

orn ‘. > Go.

gS

66a Amended Complaint (No. 14,547)

ofthe three Associations, pointing out that Brother Under-

wood had the. endorsement of the International: Union:

behind him; that he had a splended-fecord in conducting

,the affairs of the Union and thgf he had been acting in

“the utmost good faith in the coyduct of negotiations with _

the Employers. He then suggested that all of these Officers ©

‘meet with Brother Underwood at which time he would be

pleased to sit in and attempt. to work out a solution to

the entire controversy. A copy of the letter of General Vice-

. President McDonald is hereto attached and marked Ex-.

nit “C*;—— eae: 4 ea :

Pursuant to-the letter of General Vice-President Mc-

Donald, a number of calls from contractors" who indicated

- .a willingness to-reach a contract were received, and tenta-

tive appointments were made for a meeting to be held the

following: Monday, August 11, 1952. Meanwhile, the Em-

‘ployers’ representative, Mr: Halloran, upon learning of the

letter which had been sent By General Vice-President Mc-

Donald, immediately communicated with General President

Maloney on August 11, 1952, and on the date when a

number of contractérs had expressed their willingness to

discuss the matter, General’ President Maloney dispatched

an order to all officers and members of the Local ordering |

them to réturn to work immediately -and\to accept: the

proposal of the Employers which he had previously urged

the membership to adopt, A photostatie copy of the said. ~

. Order of the General President is hereto attached, marked

Exhibit “D’’. The said order of the General President threw ..-

the entire situation into confusion and nullified the efforts

of General Vice-President McDonald which. had promised

to bring an immediate solution to the entire controversy.

- The order of- the General President of August 11,

' 1952, created a problem for the Local Union which placed -

them on the horns of a dilemma. If they returned to work,

the strike, which had been successfully carried on for three

and a half months, would be completely broken and any

expectation of being able to abtain a reasonable contract

would have been destroyed. On the other hand, although

Amended Complaint (No. 14,547) 67a |

feeling that the order of the General President was illegal

and exceeded: his authority, no. redvess—could “have been

obtained through the Union channels in time to prevent

a complete breakdown of the Local's position in the strike. -

Accordingly, upon the recommendation of counsel for the

- Local, a law suit was instituted in the United States Dis-

trict Court seeking to test the validity of the order of the

General President, this being the only redress available.

to the Local. Union under the circumstances. Ms See

Shortly. before the General President issued his order

on August 11, 1952, the Building Trades-Couneil, for some —_

_ unexplained reason, rescinded its endorsement of the strike

_ of the Local and attempted to force the Local to accept the

contract of the Employers by threatening to call their men

off any job where an operating engineer was employed.

_ When the ‘local representatives refused(to accept the Em-

ployers’ proposal, the Building Trades Council then With-

4 drew their membership from all jobs whére operating engi-

neers were already employed. This action constituted a

direct violation of the Labor Management Relations Act,

:- being a secondary boycott, and it was illegal and‘violated the

7 rights of the operating engineers..Accordingly, in the action

which was brought in the Federal Court to test the validity

of the General President’s order, the, Local also asked for .

relief in the.form of an injunction against ‘the Building

_ Trades Council to restrain them from discriminating .

against the Operating Engineers. The matter came ‘on for

hearing on August 14, 1952 in the United States District’ *

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylyania and shortly |’

_ after the proceedings were opened the Trial Judge stated

' that the matter should be settled, and to that endhe recessed _

the proceedings and the parties proceeded to his chambers .

. Where settlement negotiations: were undertaken under his _

-* direction. After twodays-ef vigorous collective bargaining

_between the.Employers and the representatives of the Local,

an agreement was entered into, subject to the approval of

the membership. That agreement provided that all the is-

, ‘ mick

POM 6A at So Re SIM

68a ° = «= Amended Complaint (No. 14,547) ata te

»

‘ P

os be

- ~Sues, except one, should be submitted to arbitration. The °

Local’s. representatives ‘were successful in having the Pen-

' sion Plan, Safety Code, Improved Wages and other de-*

mands, included within the proposed arbitration. The only ©

issue which was kept out of the-arbitration was the one

relating to retroactive pay. When this issue came up,

counsel for the International Union intervened in the pro-

ceedings, and. threatened to invoke supervision over the -

Local. As a direct result of that threat the issue of retro-

active pay was withdrawn. The International Union with-

drew its threat to invoke supervision only after the issue

of retroactive pay was withdrawn. The proposed settlement

was submitted te the membership of the Local Union at a.

special meeting called on Monday, August 18, 1952. The

proposed settlement was strongly recommended by Brother

Underwood, the President of the Local, and, after full dis- .

. cussion by the members, it was adopted by the membership.

Pursuant to that agreement, the strike was imm ately

terminated and the members of the Local Union returned

to work the next morning, August-19, 1952. THe repre-

- sentatives of the General President were present at the

meeting when the membership, yoted to accept the proposal

and were fully aware of the return to work the following.

morning, During the morning when the men had returned

to work, on August 19, 1952, at 10:00 a.m., counsel. for the

Local Union made a report to the Court of the action of

the membership taken the preceding evening in approving

_, the. proposed stipulation; and advised the Court further

_ that the men had returned to-work, pursuant to the pro- |

posed agreement. The litigations were then and there settled

in the usual manner by marking them dismissed as re-

- quired by the rules ef Court. ; :

| Later on during the same day, August 19, 1952, at

about 3:00 p.m. o'clock, the General President’s Order in- °

voking supervision. Exhibit “E” was’ served: on the Local

Union. The reason assigned in the said Order invoking -

supervision’is that the General President considered it nec.

ee aah

Amended. Complaint (No. 14,547) : 7 69a

essary in order to put an end to the strike and terminate .

unemployment. dt is undisputed that at the same time the

said Order was ‘signed and served, the strike had eats

been terminated and the men.had-already returned toWwork.

If the reasoning of the General President can be construed

as sufficient to invoke’supervision the Order should never-

theless: not have been invoked since the strike-was termi-

nated the day before the Order was signed and served. .

| Pursuant, to-the Order of supervision, Brother Hunter -

P. Wharton, degigned as the supervisor, had assumed con-

trol over the affairs of the Local Union and has taken

_ chargé of the arBitration proceedings. The said supervisor

has precluded ,the representatives of the Local from-exer-

_ ¢cising any control over the conduct of the arbitration. It is.

averred that the International President is not in. pésition

to conduct or participate in any way in the said arbitration,

. Upon the ground that he has.taken the unalterable position

_ that the Local Union js ‘not ‘entitled to ‘a Pension Plan, -

3 _ Safety Code, Improved Wages, or any other demands out-.

7 lined in the rider, all of which have now been: included

_ __-within this arbitration by virtue of the insistence of the

Local's représentatives. It is obvious. that the .General

President cannot now successfully maintain a position dif-

ferent from the one which he had previously- advocated.

' The assumption of control over the arbitration proceeding

_ °'. is in violation-of the understanding existing at the time

‘ the agreement to arbitrate was entered into.and it is with-

| out authority or consent .of the Local membership. _

-The supervisor ‘sought. consent of the Local Executive

Bourd on Monday, September 8, 1952, but the said Board

declined to give such consent. The assumption of control

over the arbitration violates the Local members’ rights to

bargain collectively in their own behalf as is: guaranteed by. _

_. the International. Constitution 4id by the laws of. the |

_. .--tnited States. aby a | -

_ There are ‘no conditions whieh exist now or which

- have heretofore existed throughout the period of this con-

troversy which justify the invoking of supervision by-the

70a _ Amended Complaint (No. 14,547) a

@

General President. The Local Union hag been operated in

a highly efficient and sound manner. The administration ©’

by the Local representatives has received the commenda- .

tion of the Genera] President as well as-the General Vice-

President “assigned to this area, who have expressed com-

- plete Satisfaction and confidence in the‘anner in which

the affairs of the Local Union have been conducted. The

meetings have been conducted in a democratic and fair

manner and devoid of any Violence, coercion, or other im-

proper conduct. The membership and its representatives

have conducted themselves in full accord with the provi-

sions of the Constitution of the International Union, The

fact that the Local representativés may have disagreed

wih the International representativés is no symbol of dis-

‘Tespect or insubordination. The right to. disagree with the

International representatives is a right. which is guaran-

teed to every member as an American citizen and it is in- _

herent in our American-democratic form of life. There is

nothing in the Intérnational Constitution which conflicts

with that basic right guaranteed by the Constitution of the

United States. — Bee

It is therefore respectfully submitted, that the Order

invoking supervision, which was obviously - designed to

terminate the strike, Was incorrectly invoked, not only

because the strike had been terminated, but:also because

it was in excess ‘of. the authority granted by the Interna-

~ tional Constitution under the circumstances. The Order

of supervision should, therefore, be revoked. “-

s Roy J. Underwood’

: Roy J. UNDERWooD

On behalf of Local 542, 542A. 542B, 542C °

of the International Union of Operating

Me tencndtes atm de gineers, and Its’ Officers and Members

Deted: September 13, 1952

¢

| ae

eed Pity

At

Amended Complaint (No. 14,547 ) : *7a8,2

_ Exhibit 1-A.

|E Sxhibit 1 -A is identical With Exhibit 2 2 ia ——

at page 30a, ages is not a repr inted. | ;

Exhibit 1-B of

[Exhibit 1-B is. identical with E xhibit 2-B appearing

at page 3la, and ‘is. not here reprinted. |

“-

Exhibit 1-C

[Exhibit 1-C is identical with Exhibit 2-C appearing

“at page 32a, and is not here reprinted. |

Exhibit :D

{Exhibit 1-D is identical with Exhibit 2-D appearing

at page 34a, and is not here reprinted. Z

Exhibit 1-E

[Exhibit 1-E is identical with Exhibit 2 2-E appearing

-at page 36a, and is not here reprinted. |

|| a cae Roy J. Underwood, wii

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT oF

se TESTIMONY ak

Plaintif’ S Ev idence

_AFTERNOON SESSION

[83] ‘MR. O'BRIEN: If Your Honor pigase, Mr.

Maloney is. a bit hard of hearing and if Your Honor has no.

objection would it be all right if Mr. Maloney took a seat

over here by the jury box, so he could hear the Witnesses

. better? .

THE COURT: Let him sit:in the jury box if he wants

to. ° |

MR. O’BRIEN: Thank you, sir.

. MR. FREEDMAN: Mr. Underwood, will you take the

stand, please?

: ROY J. UN DERWOOD, having sak duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows: >

\

: DIRECT EXAMINATION

‘By MR. FREEDMAN— 7 | 1

Q. How old are you, Mr. Underwood? A. Fifty-one.

Q. Married? A. Yes, sir. ie

Q. Children?. A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many? [84] A. have one child; one

stepson and a natural san.

Q. What is your residence, Mr. Underwood? A. 2801

Garrett Road,. Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania.

(). You are the plaintiff i in this case? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr..Underwood, you were president and business

manager of Local 542 until September of 1952, when you

- were ‘removed? A. Until supervision was. imposed, I°

would say August 19.

Q. Of 52? A. 1952.

Q. Mr. Underwood, will you explain to the Court the *

re

ae.

&

4

q Roy J. Underwood, Direct . ~ 73a

4 please? Give us first the Interriatiinal Union. A. Well, .

z the International Union, of course, is composed of Local -

Unions throyghout-the United ‘States and Canada. It is

; made-up of Loeal Unions. Thése Local Unions in turn have

@ . various branches under the jurisdiction of the parent locals.

j The International has seven vice-presidents, a general

.. Secretary-treasurer and general president, and of course

the trustées and auditors. ; a

\ [85] The General Executive Board of the Interna-

_ tional Union is made up of the general president, the gen-

eral secretary-treasurer and the seven vice-presidents.

I don’t know how much more— ee

Q. Well, that is good enough. Now in the Local Union:

will you explain: the structure of your Local Union here ~

in Philadelphia, in the Philadelphia area? First tell us,

please, what jurisdiction it covers. ~ A.. Its territorial juris-

4 "diction covers the eastern half of Pennsylvania. Those are

i the thirty-four counties of Eastern Pennsylvania and the

4 - State of Delaware. It, of course, had elected officials under

autonomy: The president, vice-president, recording ‘secre-"

tary, treasurer and so forth. |

.. Q. Will you keep your voice up, please? A! Yes, sir.

) J _ It had an Executive Board under local autonomy of twenty _

{ members who, of course, made recommendations of policy

in accordance with the constitution to the membership, and .

all acts, of course, were reviewable and subject to approval

-by the membership of the Local Union.

Q. Was that Executive Board created pursuant to

fhe. [86] ‘International constitution? A. Yes, sir.

- Q. And your office of business manager and president

also? A. Yes, sir. | ae eaaiee aie,

‘_. Q. How many branches did Local 542 have? A.

There were three branches. eam ek

Q. Will you tell us what they were and what functions

they served, please? A. Local 5042-A was composed of the -

', apprentice engineers, that is, the oilers and firemen within.

the Union. er tre -o

Local 542-B consisted of those men employed on high-

74a * Roy J. Underwood, Direct

Way construction ‘who operated bulldozers, rollers and: .

. other equipment used on highway construction, which had |

not been previously organized. .

Local 542.C covered generally” material yards and.

scrap yards, men employed in those yards...

e * >» % + jet ine 2%

_ Q. I'think you mentioned that 542-B -covered the

' bulldozers, [87] all the operators of mechanical equin-

_ment? A. Yes, sir. | | eee:

Q. What is the distinction between those men and the

‘men in the parent body? A. Those men work on highway

work, and it was initially. gor the purpose, 542-B, of or-

ganizing these men employed in construction work which

were not then within the Union. The Union initially, of

course, covered only building work, and then it branched

_ Out to some heavy construction, but did -not go into the °

highway field. But within our Union and under the’ consti-

tution the members of Local 542-B and 542-A and 542-C .

are not permitted to vote for officials of the Local Union.

me Q. Then why dil you say they are not permitted to

vote? A. The constitution forbids it. |

Q. The International constitution? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Prior to the time you ‘became ‘an officer in Local.

642 what was your occupation, Mr. Underwood? .A. I

Was an operating engineer and master mechanic.

~ Q. Will you tell us when you Started, please. A. Well, .

I started about thirty-three years ago, about 1924, I would

_ Say, operating construction equipment in Akron. _— +

[88] Q. Tell us how you started, ‘what equipmbrit

you worked on, and what your experience has been. A.

Well, I started on a tractor. I went from there to firing

steam machines up in the coal stripping, and then’ went

on bulldozers, I went on Caterpillar machines, and from

thereto truck cranes, Caterpillar cranes, and rollers and.

so forth and so on. I mean, all of the construction equip-

ment normally used on construction operations. °

Q. Did: you work in any particular locality or. was. it |

pretty much‘around the country? A. Well, its was pretty

|

|

WS

7 4 2 .

hg ter nae er Peony ra

Bing PeeWee tN S

ee Bos

oo res. “. 4

Oe OnE ya. RN AN Ee EE

ake se Nels HS BREE Wack: 7 NN

So RES RRS ee ea op

Se eae

“Roy J. Underwood, Direct ee 75a.

much around the’country. Of course, I have been working

in the East for the past, oh,. I would Say fifteen, eighteen

West Coast on the Grand Coulee Dam, and. in San Fran-

cisco for the Bay Bridge job, and, a number of other jobs

_ throughout the country.’ Prior to that I worked here in the

East, too.

Q. Did you work for any particular companies or did

you work generally for all companies who had available

work? A. Generally. for all:companies, ,

_ years exclusively.” Howevey, before I worked out on the | -

Q. Can you tellus some of ‘the major ‘companies you |

worked for, please? [89] A. In the East, do you mean?

Q. Well, anywhere. ‘A. Well, I worked for McClas-

. key and Company, John McShain, Drydock Associates, Mer-

ritt Chapman and Scott, Lombardi and Company and Buck- ..

ley and Company, and—well, ju about’ every contractor

in the area at one time or another, I believe. These jobs

are only two weeks. at a time sometimes and you skip

around .a’ great deal.

ls .

xs Q. When did you join the Operating Engineers? A.

In 1935. : seo EE hte : |

Q. What was the number of the Local at that time?

_A. 506. I belonged to 506-B at the time. |

Q. Was that .subsequently changed? A. Yes. I be-

_ lieve that was changed. in 1938. A new charter was issued.

for. Local 542. . ~~ q eee

Q. Did you work pretty regularly prior to becoming

an officer in Local 542? A. Fairly regularly, yes. During -

. the period from 1935. to 1948, however, I experienced con-

siderable unemployment, but I lived. oy

Q. Can you state why you experienced—let me ask

you first was the Union operating,under autonomy or was

_ it under supervision? A. It was under International ‘su-

pervision, under.the [90] supervision of —

Q. From when to when. . A. Well, to my knowledge

from 1935 up until the Court-supervised election in 1948,

when it was removed. .

6a | a | Roy J. Under od, Direct * ‘ | ae

Q. Now, can you tell pe about the at ao

tions which existed in the Local during that period of —

» Supervision which you know of your knowledge? aes

MR. .0’BRIEN: Objected to. That is objected

*to, Your Honor. sf °

THE COURT? I will overrule the objectign.

2A. Well, the: conditions weren’t good, of course.

THE. COURT: : That isn’t the question, Mr. Un-

_ Werwood. Let’s' not characterize things— on

MR. FREEDMAN: Please be specific.

THE COURT: —by adjectives. Let’s have facts.

“Conclusions I will draw. I will characterize situations. -

You just tell. us ‘what the situation was. Jets

A. Well; I attended nearly all. of the meetings from

' late 1937 up until 1948, and I know that no one was per-.,

. . mitted to speak on the floor without being threatened, ‘and -

I have seen quite a few beaten, and badly beaten, on the

floor. :

- - MR: 0” BRIENS That. is objectdd ‘to; sir, as not.

” being responsive. I meve it be te

On [91] THE COURT: Well, I ‘going to over-

rule it. I am going to let some of the background in,

aaae but I am not going:to allow you to give me the history

-.. of the Union from the time he joined it déwn to the

time of this suit. I want that sketched in very preety.

‘We have gvi to get down to this case. .

MR. FREEDMAN: YoursHonor; that was my *

intention, sir. I didn’t intehd tosgo into too much de- -

‘ tail, but I did want to give the highlights.. —

THE COURT: All right, that I will permit you “

_ to do,” | ¥

[92] By MR. ‘FREEDMAN— eae NA Es Dee

' Q: There was one other thing I wanted to ask you Can

~ about your prior qualifications, Mr. Underwood. Weg you’.

a master mechanic, too, during that period? A. ve sir,

Iw as. » | .

.) ae Bier

e : ead ae »

Roy J. Underwood, Direct et TTa

Q. Will you tell the Court what a master mechanic 18st

A, A master mechanic supervises. ‘the operating engineers mS

ona “project and supervises maintenance and repair of con-

_ struction Equipment.

- Q»Now, can you tell us who the supervisor was during

that period of supervision? A. Joseph Fay was the super- ,

visor.

Q. You say you ‘attended the meetings? A. Yes, sir. .

Q. Tell us briefly what you observed as 2 regular mat-

ter in connection with those meetings, please. A. Well,

efforts were made, of course, to determine where the money

was going in the local union and to determine why mem-

bers had to kick back to the supervisors.

-MR,Q’BRIEN: ‘That is objected to as hearsay,’

if Your Honor please. I move that, it be’stricken. |

‘THE COURT: I think your objection is. [98] 35

very well taken on the matter, Mr. 0’ Brien,

MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, these are all

things w

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