# Appendix — Underwood v. Maloney > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0483%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1958 - **Citation:** 358 U.S. 864 ## Text 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 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, 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 . . . 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 remainin [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0483%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.