International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, District Council No. 4,, et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of Labor, et al., Appellants.

Brief

N.Y.September 12, 2018

STATE OF NEW YORK Court of Appeals APL-2017-00087 Appellate Division, 4th Department No.: CA 16-00663 Erie County Index No.: 801775/2015 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES, DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 4, by its Secretary-Treasurer, Mark Stevens; and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES, FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE OF WESTERN & CENTRAL NEW YORK, by its Trustees Mark Stevens, Gregory Stoner, Robert Sinopoli, Jeffrey Carroll, Todd Rotunno, Michael Dems, Daniel LaFrance, Dan Jackson, Dominic Zirilli, Tim McCluskey, Jeff Sturtz, Frank Hosek, and Marvin Paige; and FORNO ENTERPRISES, INC.; and TGR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and CHRISTOPHER J. POWERS, as an Apprentice enrolled in the Painters District Council No. 4 Glazier Apprenticeship Program; and RACHEL TERHART, as a former Apprentice enrolled in the Painters District Council No. 4 Glazier Apprenticeship Program, Plaintiffs-Respondents, - AGAINST - THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and MARIO MUSOLINO, as Acting Commissioner of New York State Department of Labor, and CHRISTOPHER ALUND, as Director of the Bureau of Public Works, a Division of the New York State Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellants. BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE BROWN & WEINRAUB, PLLC Patrick E. Brown, Esq. Tracy L. Connolly, Esq. Attorneys for Amicus New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 50 State Street, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 427-7350 Date of Completion: November 2, 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................. 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................. 2 QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................... 3 RELIEF SOUGHT ........................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 3 POINT I. THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IS HARMFUL TO INDIVIDUAL APPRENTICES WHO ENROLL IN TRADE-SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND EXPECT TO BE TRAINED IN A SPECIFIC TRADE. ............................................................................... 3 A. Apprentices expect employers to assign them tasks that will teach skills specific to the program in which they enrolled. ........................... 4 B. The Fourth Department’s decision allows apprentices to be exploited on public works projects by contractors seeking to minimize their labor costs....................................................................................... 8 1. Apprentices, like all individuals, have a constitutional right to receive the prevailing wage on public works projects unless they are performing tasks within the scope of their trade-specific apprenticeship program. ...................................................................... 8 2. Under the Fourth Department’s decision, contractors are incentivized to utilize apprentices from any registered apprenticeship program, regardless of the type of work to be performed, so they can take advantage of the lower apprentice wage rate. ........................... 10 ii POINT II. THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IS HARMFUL TO THE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND ITS ASSOCIATED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS, IN BOTH NEW YORK STATE AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. .................................................................................... 12 A. Consistency among trade-specific apprenticeship programs is fundamental to the success of the state and national network of construction apprenticeship programs. ................................................. 14 B. The jurisdictional boundaries between the trades are deeply rooted in history and tradition and should not be interfered with by the courts. ................................................................................................... 16 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 20 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Matter of Monarch Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Roberts, 70 N.Y.2d 91 (1987) ..................................................................... 9, 11 NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION N.Y. Const. art. I, § 17 ................................................................... 8, 9 STATE STATUTES N.Y. Labor Law § 220(3-e) ...................................................... 4, 8, 11 N.Y. Labor Law § 810 ..................................................................... 3-4 N.Y. Labor Law § 815 ........................................................................ 4 N.Y. Labor Law § 815 (1) ............................................................... 4-5 N.Y. Labor Law § 815 (2) ............................................................... 4-5 N.Y. Labor Law § 815 (3) ............................................................... 4-5 STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5 (a) .................................................................. 5 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5 (c) .............................................................. 5, 8 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5 (c)(3) ............................................................. 5 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5 (e) .................................................................. 5 FEDERAL STATUTES 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(D) ................................................................. 18 29 U.S.C. § 160(k) ............................................................................ 18 MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES 3 N.Y. State Constitutional Convention of 1938, Revised Record .............. 9 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES (cont’d) PA GE Building & Construction Trades Department, The Builders, The Seventy- Five Year History of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (1983) ......................................................................................... 17 Merit Apprenticeship Alliance, About Us, http://meritalliance.org/about-us/ (last visited October 23, 2017) .............................................................. 14, 18 North America’s Building Trades Unions Affiliates, https://nabtu.org/about-nabtu/affiliates (last visited October 18, 2017) ............................................................................. 12 Construction Apprenticeship – The “Other Four-Year Degree,” available at https://nabtu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ NABTU-The-Other-Four-Year-Degree.pdf (last visited October 17, 2017) ........................................................................................... 13 Memorandum from Michael Braun to Tom Kriger (May 16, 2017) 13-14 Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry, https://nabtu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 03/Plan-for-the-Settlement-of-Jurisdictional-Disputes-Effective- May-1-2011.pdf (last visited October 23, 2017) .............................. 17 N.Y.S. Building & Construction Trades Council Constitution & By-Laws .................................................................................................... 2, 4 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES (cont’d) PA GE N.Y.S. Dep’t of Labor Apprenticeship Sponsor List, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/ sponsor/index.shtm (last visited October 17, 2017) .................... 14-15 Become an Apprentice – What is My Training Like? https://labor. ny.gov/apprenticeship/general/registration.shtm (last visited October 17, 2017) ............................................................................. 14 Boilermaker Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/ pdfs/ActiveTrades/15-333/pdf ............................................................ 7 Bricklayer & Mason Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/ apprenticeship/pdfs/ActiveTrades/11-025.pdf ................................... 6 Sheet Metal Worker Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/ apprenticeship/pdfs/ActiveTrades/15-201/pdf ................................... 7 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America https://www.carpenters.org (last visited October 17, 2017) ....................... 12 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO respectfully submits this brief in support of the New York State Department of Labor’s (“the Department”) appeal to reverse the Order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dated February 10, 2017. Supreme Court, Erie County correctly decided that individuals are not working as registered apprentices, and thus must be paid the journeyperson’s wage rate, when the construction work they are performing is not classified as work which falls within the apprenticeship program to which they are enrolled. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed this decision, concluding that contractors may pay the lower apprentice wage rate to any registered apprentice for any type of construction work, even if the work is unrelated to the apprenticeship program in which the apprentice is registered. This reversal is a misguided attempt to cure a perceived anomaly created by the lower court’s decision, i.e., that a contractor must pay journey-level wages to unskilled apprentices. However, there is no anomaly. The notion that unskilled apprentices working outside their trade must receive journey-level wages is an intended consequence of a trade-specific apprenticeship industry. It is meant to deter contractors from jeopardizing the health and safety of untrained apprentices by 2 placing them on projects for which they are unqualified, solely to take advantage of a lower wage rate. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The New York State Building & Construction Trades Council (“Amicus”) was established in 1956 to address the needs of trade unions within New York State. The Amicus seeks to protect the interests of its members: 129 local unions, 16 regional building trades councils, and 13 trade-specific district councils and state associations. Collectively, the Amicus and its affiliated organizations represent more than 200,000 unionized construction workers throughout the state. The Amicus’ Constitution and By-Laws states the organization’s objectives, one of which is “to foster, develop, and advance apprenticeship training and to cooperate with Federal and State agencies promoting the interests of apprenticeship training.” See New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Constitution & By-Laws, Preamble (2016). Completion of a quality apprenticeship program is analogous to a four-year college degree in the skilled construction trades. Proper training is a fundamental component of the building trades’ philosophy – and critical to their future – because it ensures superior craftsmanship and safe job sites. Therefore, the Amicus has a profound interest in preserving the integrity of New York’s construction apprenticeship programs. 3 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Labor Law Section 220 permits apprentices who work on public works projects to be paid the lower apprentice wage rate, rather than the journey- level prevailing wage, when they are not enrolled in a registered apprenticeship program specific to the classification of work they are performing. RELIEF SOUGHT We respectfully submit to this Court that in order for apprentices to be paid an apprentice wage rate, they must be enrolled in a registered apprenticeship program specific to the classification of work they are performing. An apprentice enrolled in any other program, whether registered with the Department or not, is not working as an apprentice and must be paid the journey-level wage rate corresponding to the classification of the work being performed. The Amicus seeks reversal of the Fourth Department’s decision which, if left undisturbed, will endanger apprentices, disrupt the construction industry, and undermine the integrity of trade-specific apprenticeship programs. ARGUMENT POINT I. THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IS HARMFUL TO INDIVIDUAL APPRENTICES WHO ENROLL IN TRADE-SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND EXPECT TO BE TRAINED IN A SPECIFIC TRADE. New York State’s apprenticeship statute is structured to deliver a two-way bargain for apprentices and contractors in furtherance of public policy. See N.Y. 4 Labor Law § 810 (declaring it to be the public policy of the state to develop skilled craftsmen through sound apprenticeship training standards). Construction apprentices are promised trade-specific classroom instruction and paid on-the-job training under the supervision of a skilled journey person, and the contractors who utilize apprentices on public work projects are allowed to pay them a lower, adjusted prevailing wage based on each apprentice’s progress in the program. See N.Y. Labor Law §§ 220(3-e), 815. Apprentices and contractors who do not uphold their end of the deal should not receive the benefit of the bargain. A. Apprentices expect employers to assign them tasks that will teach skills specific to the program in which they enrolled. The occupations related to the construction trades are generally categorized into fifteen distinct and specialized crafts. See generally New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Constitution & By-Laws (2016). Journeypersons in each trade have learned how to perform the tasks associated with their particular craft, and they are hired to accomplish specific tasks associated with a larger construction project. It follows that apprentices who enroll in a trade-specific program expect to receive the training and instruction necessary to learn the tasks associated with their chosen trade so they can progress through the program and ultimately achieve journeyperson status. See generally N.Y. Labor Law § 815(1)-(3) (setting forth the suggested standards for apprenticeship 5 agreements); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5 (a), (c)(3), and (e) (setting forth the standards apprenticeship programs must meet to be registered, including a written plan detailing the terms and conditions of employment and training, the work processes in which apprentices will receive supervised work experience and on-the-job training, and a method for each apprentice to document task rotation and skills acquired through the program). Apprenticeship program sponsors and the individual contractors who utilize apprentices are expected to adhere to each program’s training outline so that apprentices can progress through their programs efficiently. See generally 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5(c) (setting forth the standards and provisions which must be included in each apprenticeship program). When contractors divert apprentices away from the tasks they are supposed to be learning pursuant to the apprenticeship program’s written plan, the apprentices are not receiving supervised on-the-job training related to the program in which they are registered, and they are not performing the type of work which is required to properly advance through their specific program. Moreover, while they are performing these unrelated tasks, they are unavailable for program-related opportunities which may exist. The Department’s interpretation of the statute deters the misuse of apprentices because it requires the contractor to pay the full prevailing wage rate 6 unless the apprentices are performing work related to the program in which they are enrolled. The Fourth Department’s decision, on the other hand, opens the door to abuse and allows contractors to pay the lower apprentice rate even if the apprentices are not receiving the benefit of the bargain promised to them by statute, namely, they are not receiving the trade-specific on-the-job training they signed up for. Indeed, the court’s reliance on the plain meaning rule, and specifically its interpretation of the word “a” to mean “any” instead of “one” is wholly inadequate given the complex nature of this case. That this case happens to involve two trades with overlapping work processes – iron workers and glaziers – is not determinative for two reasons. First, the court’s decision is not limited to these two trades and would permit a contractor to utilize a machinist apprentice to perform electrical work, or a cabinetmaker apprentice to perform operating engineer work, even if none of their work processes overlap. Second, even when the trades involved do have overlapping work processes, common sense dictates that each trade carries out the tasks associated with those work processes differently. To illustrate, the training outline for “Bricklayer & Mason” includes a work process for the “care and safe use of tools and equipment.” New York State Department of Labor, Bricklayer & Mason Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/pdfs/ActiveTrades/11- 025.pdf, at 1 (last visited October 23, 2017). The training outline for the 7 “Boilermaker” includes a work process for “learning names of tools and equipment.” New York State Department of Labor, Boilermaker Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/pdfs/ActiveTrades/15-333.pdf, at 1 (last visited October 23, 2017). And the training outline for “Sheet Metal Worker” includes a work process for “using and caring for hand tools and equipment.” New York State Department of Labor, Sheet Metal Worker Work Processes, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/pdfs/ActiveTrades/15-201.pdf, at 1 (last visited October 23, 2017). While all three programs include the same, or substantially similar, work processes, it is obvious that the tools used by a bricklayer will differ from those used by a boilermaker, which in turn, will differ from those used by a sheet metal worker. Nevertheless, the Fourth Department’s decision permits a contractor to pay the lower apprentice rate to a bricklayer apprentice who performs tasks classified as “sheet metal work” and intended to be performed by sheet metal apprentices. The bricklayer apprentice, having no say in his work assignment, will be forced to perform work for which he is not trained and which does nothing to help him efficiently advance through his own apprenticeship program. It is an absurd result that undermines the integrity of the system and is certainly not what the bricklayer apprentice signed up for. 8 B. The Fourth Department’s decision allows apprentices to be exploited on public works projects by contractors seeking to minimize their labor costs. Labor of human beings is not a commodity nor an article of commerce and shall never be so considered or construed. No laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, . . . shall . . . be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or used. --New York State Constitution, Article 1, Section 17. 1. Apprentices, like all individuals, have a constitutional right to receive the prevailing wage on public works projects unless they are performing tasks within the scope of their trade-specific apprenticeship program. As part of the “apprenticeship bargain,” apprentices agree to accept a lower wage in exchange for classroom training and on-the-job experience consistent with the apprenticeship program in which they are enrolled. See N.Y. Labor Law § 220(3-e); 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 601.5(c). The Fourth Department’s decision, however, allows contractors, eager to drive down wages so they can win bids, to sidestep their end of the bargain and pay the lower wage to all apprentices, regardless of the classification of work being performed, thus depriving them of the training and instruction they bargained for. This result is inconsistent with the legislative 9 history of the prevailing wage and apprenticeship statutes,1 and is what the delegates to the 1938 constitutional convention were trying to protect against when they embraced a guiding principal so important that they memorialized it in Article 1 of the state’s Constitution – labor of human beings in not a commodity.2 Importantly, even under the Fourth Department’s decision, an apprentice must be paid the apprentice rate that corresponds with the classification of work being performed (as opposed to the apprentice rate of the program in which he is enrolled). In this particular case, the contractor wants to utilize glazier apprentices to perform work classified as “iron worker” work. It just so happens that the iron workers’ apprentice wage is higher than the glaziers’ apprentice wage, thus the glazier apprentices will be earning more than they otherwise would. However, the court’s decision is not limited to these two trades, and apprentices will not always receive the higher wage rate. For example, it would be possible for a contractor to utilize an operating engineer apprentice to perform work classified as belonging to the laborers. The operating engineers’ wage rates are significantly higher than the laborers’ wage rates, but under the Fourth Department’s decision, the contractor 1 This Court has previously recognized that the legislature amended the apprenticeship law in 1966 in response to contractors’ abuse of the labor force in order to escape the prevailing wage mandate. Matter of Monarch Elec. Contr. Corp. v. Roberts, 70 N.Y.2d 91, 95 (1987). 2 The historical record of the Constitutional Convention of 1938 makes clear that Article 1, § 17 of the State Constitution was a declaration, indeed a mandate, that in every matter of interpretation, or where there is a balancing of interests, the rights of labor shall prevail over the interests of property. As stated by Edward Weinfeld, “[t]he proposal now offered with respect to labor of a human being not being a commodity is intended to write into the Constitution the fundamental principle that human rights are superior to property rights.” 3 N.Y. State Constitutional Convention of 1938, Revised Record 2204. 10 could pay the apprentice the laborers’ lower wage rate and still be in compliance with the prevailing wage law. This disparity is particularly relevant given the fact that these individuals would otherwise be entitled to the full prevailing wage but for their decision to bargain away that constitutionally-protected right in exchange for a trade-specific apprenticeship. The best way to protect apprentices is to ensure that the prevailing wage and apprenticeship statutes work together as intended to carry out the public policies enveloped in the Labor Law, namely, promoting sound apprenticeship training without undermining the prevailing wage mandate. In other words, to ensure individuals receive approved, supervised training based upon sound apprenticeship standards, contractors must not be permitted to manipulate the prevailing wage law by paying an apprentice wage unless the apprentice is enrolled in a registered program and is performing work within the scope of that particular program’s training outline. 2. Under the Fourth Department’s decision, contractors are incentivized to utilize apprentices from any registered apprenticeship program, regardless of the type of work to be performed, so they can take advantage of the lower apprentice wage rate. Plaintiffs-Respondents casually dismiss the possibility of abuse as a result of the Fourth Department’s decision. Specifically, they assert that “it would be 11 economically disastrous to employ individuals . . . who know nothing about the subject trade” and that apprenticeship programs risk being de-registered if they allow their apprentices to perform work outside the work processes set forth in their apprenticeship agreements (360-61). They are wrong. This Court has previously recognized the widespread competition among contractors and their willingness to exploit workers, if necessary, to win bids. Matter of Monarch Elec. Contr. Corp v. Roberts, 70 N.Y.2d 91, 95 (1987). The prevailing wage law protects employees from income deflation by equalizing wages for all contractors, forcing them to compete based on their skills and productivity. However, the Fourth Department’s decision creates a loophole which incentivizes the misuse of apprentices: contractors now have an opportunity to lower their overall wage obligations within the bounds of the law but at the expense of the apprentice. For example, contractors may only utilize apprentices if they are signatory to a registered apprenticeship program approved by the DOL. See N.Y. Labor Law § 220(3-e). Under the Fourth Department’s decision, a contractor who is signatory to two or three registered programs, e.g., carpenters, laborers, operating engineers, may use those apprentices to perform work not within the scope of those programs, e.g., sheet metal work. Why would a contractor do so? Because it allows him to compete, by virtue of lower labor costs, with contractors who are signatory to the 12 sheet metal workers apprenticeship program. In fact, a contractor could use the same apprentice to perform work associated with multiple trades on any given day. POINT II. THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IS HARMFUL TO THE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND ITS ASSOCIATED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS, IN BOTH NEW YORK STATE AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. The occupations related to the construction industry are generally categorized according to fifteen separate and distinct crafts,3 sometimes referred to collectively as the “building trades.” Fifteen international unions, one for each craft, represent thousands of construction workers at the national level through the local unions over which they have jurisdiction. See Affiliates, North America’s Building Trades Unions, https://nabtu.org/about-nabtu/affiliates/ (last visited October 17, 2017).4 In New York, members of local unions from all fifteen crafts are also represented at the state level by the Amicus. Within each of the fifteen crafts, additional classifications may exist to reflect an even greater level of specialization. For example, glaziers and drywall finishers are crafts within the Painters’ international union; stone masons and tile setters are crafts within the Bricklayers’ international union; millwrights and pile drivers are crafts within the Carpenters’ international union, and so forth. 3 Insulators, Bricklayers, Boilermakers, Carpenters, Elevator Constructors, Electricians, Iron Wkrs., Laborers, Operating Eng., Painters & Glaziers, Plasterers & Cement Masons, Roofers, Sheet Metal Wkrs., Teamsters, and Plumbers & Steamfitters. 4 Note that the International Brotherhood of Carpenters is not currently affiliated with the national organization, North America’s Building Trades Unions. Information about the Carpenters International Union can be accessed here: https://www.carpenters.org/ (last visited October 17, 2010). 13 Construction apprenticeship programs sponsored by unions, contractors, or both, provide a pathway for individuals who want to learn a craft in pursuit of a career in the trades. Approximately 74% of registered apprentices nationwide are enrolled in programs jointly sponsored by unions and contractors (“joint programs”). North America’s Building Trades Unions, Construction Apprenticeship – The “Other Four-Year Degree” at 4, available at https://nabtu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NABTU-The-Other-Four-Year- Degree.pdf (last visited October 17, 2017). The remaining 26% of apprentices are enrolled in non-joint programs.5 Id. Among the joint programs, labor and management privately invest more than $1.3 billion annually in more than 1900 training centers across the United States and Canada. Id. at 2-3. The magnitude of the national joint apprenticeship network is best illustrated by the following comparison: if it were a college or university, it would be the second largest private, and the fourth largest public, university in the country. Id. at 6. Apprentices in these programs receive more than $10 billion per year in wages and benefits. Id. Trade-specific registered construction apprenticeship programs in New York are part of this vast network. Throughout the state, 106 training centers associated with joint programs provide a path for entry into all fifteen trades. Memorandum 5 Non-joint programs are sponsored by management only. 14 from Michael Braun to Tom Kriger (May 16, 2017). Though not as numerous, additional training programs operated by non-joint programs also provide apprentices with access to some trades. For example, the Empire State Merit Apprenticeship Alliance is a consortium of seventy contractors that are signatory to three registered apprenticeship programs, one each for carpenters, laborers, and operating engineers. See About Us, Merit Apprenticeship Alliance, http://meritalliance.org/about-us/ (last visited October 23, 2017); see also Apprenticeship Sponsor List, New York State Department of Labor, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/sponsor/index.shtm, p. 23 (last visited October 17, 2017).6 A. Consistency among trade-specific apprenticeship programs is fundamental to the success of the state and national network of construction apprenticeship programs. Because the construction industry is highly specialized, construction apprenticeship programs are trade-specific and generally align with similar trade- specific programs across the country. See Become an Apprentice - What Is My Training Like? New York State Department of Labor, https://labor.ny.gov/apprenticeship/general/registration.shtm (last visited October 17, 2017) (noting that apprentices who successfully complete a registered 6 Two additional apprenticeship programs (cement masons and iron workers) registered to the Empire State Merit Apprenticeship Alliance are listed as probationary as of October 17, 2017. 15 apprenticeship program receive a nationally-recognized credential). Consistency among programs is important because the temporary nature of construction projects requires worker portability from one location to the next. A boilermaker apprentice in Buffalo should receive the same training as a boilermaker apprentice in Newburgh because traveling to different parts of the state or country for work is often required if skilled journey workers want to remain employed. Thus, individuals who enroll in the boilermakers apprenticeship program expect to learn the skills specific to boilermaker work, and contractors who hire from a pool of boilermakers expect each potential candidate to have received boilermaker-specific training. The Fourth Department’s decision will severely disrupt the continuity within this complex apprenticeship network. In reversing the lower court, the Fourth Department misapplied the plain meaning rule – focusing on a single word within the entire statute – and essentially ignored the context of the overall legislative scheme (400). In doing so, the court concluded that deference to the Department’s interpretation of the statute was unnecessary: [the] “appeal does not call upon the court to interpret a statute where ‘specialized knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices . . . is at stake.” (399). The Fourth Department is wrong. It is precisely this “specialized knowledge and understanding” of the construction industry’s national apprenticeship network that makes the Fourth Department’s ruling so untenable. 16 The Department’s competence and knowledge about the individual work processes identified for each trade is essential to prevailing wage determinations, apprentice- to-journeyperson ratios, and certification of programs. By rejecting the Department’s interpretation, the Fourth Department has provided an incentive, in the form of lower labor costs, for contractors to utilize unskilled apprentices to perform work outside their chosen field, in trades for which they have received no substantive or safety-related training. Where the Fourth Department does briefly allude to the statute as a whole, it applies rudimentary elements of statutory construction to support its decision, with no consideration given to the contextual background of the industry to which the statute applies. This result undermines the public policies embodied within the prevailing wage and apprenticeship statutes, and thrusts apprentices and all those who work alongside them into harm’s way. B. The jurisdictional boundaries between the trades are deeply rooted in history and tradition and should not be interfered with by the courts. The jurisdictional boundaries between the trades is a reflection of the specific skills and specialization of each craft. The specialized training acquired through apprenticeship produces skilled journey workers who are called upon to build the largest, most complex projects in the nation. Disputes between trades claiming jurisdiction over particular types of work have existed for as long as the trades themselves. As early as 1897, building trades 17 unions recognized that harmony amongst themselves was necessary if they wanted to ensure their success and defend against industrial unions who sought the same work. Building & Construction Trades Department, The Builders, The Seventy-five Year History of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO 1-2 (1983). To bring about and maintain harmony, the trades were forced to deal with the persistent jurisdictional disputes that drove a wedge between them, and they worked towards creating a formal plan to resolve disputes as they arose. Id. at 4. Various versions of the plan have existed throughout the years, but each one was intended to serve the same purpose – to preserve the integrity of each craft’s jurisdictional boundaries. See generally Id. at 4-32 (with specific references on pp. 4, 8, 18, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 37). Indeed, peaceful resolution of jurisdictional disputes was such an integral part of our nation’s history that one of these agreements was signed at a White House ceremony hosted by President Johnson in 1965. Id. at 32. Today, disagreements among the unionized trades are generally settled according to the National Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry, originally adopted in 1973 and amended over the years to accommodate changes in the industry. Id. at 37; see also Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry, https://nabtu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Plan-for-the-Settlement-of- Jurisdictional-Disputes-Effective-May-1-2011.pdf (last visited October 23, 2017). 18 Alternatively, relief can be sought under the National Labor Relations Act if a union engages in an unfair labor practice to coerce an employer to assign work to a particular union rather than to a competing union. 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b)(4)(D); 29 U.S.C. § 160(k). In the nonunion sector, workers are not organized by craft into local unions, so jurisdictional disputes do not exist. Nevertheless, with nearly three-fourths of all construction apprentices being trained through joint (union – management) apprenticeship programs, respect for the trades’ jurisdictional boundaries is essential to the industry. In fact, even in the non-union sector, apprenticeship programs are trade-specific. See About Us, Merit Apprenticeship Alliance, http://meritalliance.org/about-us/ (last visited October 23, 2017). The parties to this case recognize that the Department classifies both the type of work (bricklayers, iron workers, glaziers, etc.) and the status of the worker (journeyperson, apprentice) for purposes of setting the prevailing wage rates and determining apprentice ratios for each job. However, the parties have competing views about how these classifications work together. For example, if the Fourth Department’s decision were to stand, the first classification - type of work – would be irrelevant when performed by apprentices because any apprentice from any trade could perform any type of work regardless of his or her skill level or area of expertise. The classification would be useful only for determining the wage to be 19 paid and would ignore the fact that apprentices enrolled in trade-specific programs learn skills directly related to that specific trade. In essence, the decision removes a barrier which currently exists to deter contractors from utilizing apprentices across jurisdictional lines, a practice which will jeopardize the integrity of trade- specific apprenticeship programs. The Supreme Court and the Department both correctly recognized the apprenticeship issue before the Court for what it really is - an attempt to circumvent the Department’s classification of work in response to an underlying jurisdictional dispute between two trades. (36, 368, 370, 376-79). To be sure, the building trades unions do not always agree with how the Department classifies work. Nevertheless, the unions understand and respect the importance of the Department’s classifications, even when they conflict with the trades’ jurisdictional boundaries. The Amicus takes no position as to whether DOL’s classification is correct. Rather, the Amicus points out that the Court is being asked to construe the apprenticeship statute in a way that will harm individual apprentices, fester jurisdictional disputes, disrupt every apprenticeship program in the state, open the door to worker exploitation, and undermine the Department’s role as a regulator of apprenticeship, prevailing wage, and safety. 20 CONCLUSION Accordingly, we respectfully request this Court to reverse the Fourth Department’s order dated February 10, 2017 and declare the Department of Labor’s interpretation of Labor Law Section 220, which requires apprentices who perform work not classified as belonging to the apprenticeship program to which they belong to receive the journey-level prevailing wage rate, was rational, reasonable, and consistent with the prevailing wage and apprenticeship statutes. Dated: Albany, New York November 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Patrick E. Brown, Esq. Tracy L. Connolly, Esq. BROWN & WEINRAUB, PLLC Attorneys for Amicus New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 50 State Street, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 427-7350 pbrown@brownweinraub.com tconnolly@brownweinraub.com 21 PRINTING CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.13(c)(1) The undersigned attorney, Patrick E. Brown, hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume limitations of 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 500.13(c)(1). This brief was prepared using a proportionately spaced typeface, specifically, Times New Roman, 14 Point. According to the word processing system used to prepare this brief, the total number of words in this brief, excluding the Table of Contents, the Table of Authorities, the Printing Certification, and authorized addendums is 4385. Dated: Albany, NY November 2, 2017 __________________________ Patrick E. Brown, Esq. BROWN & WEINRAUB, PLLC Attorneys for Amicus New York State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO 50 State Street, 4th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 427-7350 ADDENDUM Building & Construction Trades Department, The Builders, The Seventy-Five Year History of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (1983) (selected excerpts). North America’s Building Trades Unions, Memorandum from Michael Braun to Tom Kriger (May 16, 2016). NYS Building & Construction Trades Council, Constitution & By-Laws (2016). Building & Construction Trades Department, The Builders, The Seventy-Five Year History of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (1983) (selected excerpts) THE03- BUILDERSc The Seventy-five Year History of the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIOr □w tps 4 I05 mmii * But organizational necessity and economic wisdom dictated that building tradesmen come together in unity. The first major attempt at unity within the building trades was the National Building Trades Council, founded in 1897 and largely dominated by local councils. The Council was weak, however, and not able to sustain the impor¬ tant job it had within the industry. In its place, the Structural Building Trades Alliance formed on October 8, 1903. The Alliance emphasized the importance of national unions in the advancement of a national front against the menace of non-union shops. Nine trades joined in the founding of the Alliance, and the organi¬ zation was further broken down into similar groups of crafts — the woodworking group, the pipefitting group, the decorating group and the iron working group. The Alliance set up a structure and proce¬ dures for a national board of governors to settle jurisdictional dis¬ putes which arose at the local level and were left unresolved. After its promising beginning, the Alliance ran into difficult times, with the Bricklayers and the Electrical Workers declining to join and the Painters and Iron Workers eventually withdrawing. At the 1907 convention of the Alliance, the remaining seven member unions —Carpenters, Painters, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Steam Engineers, Hod Carriers, Tile Layers and Lathers — proposed that a depart¬ment of building trades of the AF of L be created. That same year, the AF of L convention took steps leading toward establishment of a department of the building trades. The Alliance had existed side by side with the AF of L in an uneasy state — thenational unions in the Alliance were affiliated with the AF of L and supported the federation financially. But the Alliance remained out¬ side the federation amid fears that the building trades unions would dominate the federation. But again the necessity of unity within the trade union movement prevailed, and the federation met in conference with the affiliated building trades unions in February 1908 to pave the way for creation of the Department. According to James Kirby, president of the Carpenters, the reso¬ lution passed by the conference gave the building trades “what they always clamored for: namely, complete autonomy over their own affairs/’ In addition, the building trades won a dispute with federa¬ tion President Gompers over the chartering of state bodies. Gompers adamantly opposed the provision which could allow the new Building Trades Department to charter state bodies, but the Building Trades won this important victory, which would later enhance their indepen¬ dence. The AF of L issued the formal charter of the Department on March 20, 1908 to the seven founding members of the Department: Carpen¬ ters (James Kirby), Plumbers (WilliamJ. Spencer), Painters (George F. Hedrick), Steam Engineers (James G. Hannahan), Iron Workers 0 ■P•f • x FEDERATION Ol LABOR- * DOTH GRANT THIS -- Certificate of Affiliation Win -V Jtf.i*. t4. Win .’'Ijlti Corley tCivby t*»ro .Jf. .Vi . -ml.. mewr/OK or LABOV. ■ • ./ Hu ntotintiol. **• u..J . . Hid l*i. jlrfiU*'** >*•" « AHLHKAN . i uM u hj*’. tr- W jil • t,««••..- . A - s. Vuiliima Clru&rÿfUyaihitttil .X.Jf.ci i'..b «.# #4 .I * •I #A,iI ..IIIMI -» tiW irtm t 1•*<••*»•• I* rtPSUthii. JmJf'H*.* 'ÿ> .. ..Hu . • Aw. ../.*»1 building department .A .~¥. of .. i. Hr urni.i rf *1. if. Ii,*f* Mim'yi. «»•/ w.v 4. .//ni.i. ,V.« In lClilpc«e,lUlvrc.%( ?r. <*• i t.jt I* 4 2\v<.1 11.4. Ml ili'f. '1 . . yyr'*> #0*1» . r>’J • Jw#**« *4 ' & (ZAKU $ UIIKI Pitum aJLx »r4 4lk HUIlfltl / CHI’ Ml 11 I'Af 0>b Original Building Trades Department Certificate of Affiliation with the American Federation of Labor, March 20, 1908. (Frank J. Ryan), Lathers (William J. McSorley) and Tile Layers (Charles H. Leps). The first Building Trades Department convention was held in November of that year in Denver, Colorado. Even in the short span of time between the conference and the convention, five new unions called themselves members of the new Department. Charter mem- 32 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT t < Tight bonds of unity have existed among the building trades crafts for more than a century. While building trades unions like the Plasterers and Carpenters formed even earlier, the crafts came together to unite in leagues and councils in the early years after the Civil War. From the beginning, building tradesmen recognized the principle of “strength through unity,” which is at the core of trade unionism. These early groups had two central aims: to establish the closed or union shop, and to establish procedures for settling jurisdic¬ tional disputes. The founding of the American Federation of Labor in 1886 and its displacement of the old Knights of Labor opened new opportunities for organization and solidarity on the part of building trades workers. Just two years after the founding of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers set forth a proposal which served as the forerunner of policies establishing various departments of allied unions — including the Building and Construction Trades Depart¬ ment. Gompers proposed that the future organization of the federa¬ tion be modeled on the basis of “having the various industries classi¬ fied by the division of these industries; such as, for instance, the iron, steel or metal industry to have a convention of the representatives of all trade unions in that industry; the building trades to have their convention of the representatives of the unions in their trade, the railroad employees theirs, and so on, each legislating upon questions that affect the general interests of their particular trades.” Gompers’ vision was a good one, but was not yet to meet its time. Sharp differences of opinion and policy regarding the chartering of state bodies caused a rift between the AF of L and the leaders of the building trades, leaving the building trades councils unaffiliated with the AF of L. mii M fee ftI. to. 'S. * 1 BUILDERS The Seventy-five Year History of the Building & ConstructionTades Department, AFL-CIO L mm, & & 1 8ii> i_ ik IMI\ f . r i / A «ri k: ■ * t * y 'in . . ✓ ~ :L Indicative of this rocky period in building trades history was the withdrawal of the Carpenters from the Department for a short 2-year period from 1914-1916. Angered by jurisdictional disputes with the Sheet Metal Workers and the Machinists over metal trim and mill¬ wrights, the Carpenters voted to withdraw from the Department at their 1914 convention. As the largest union of the building trades, the Carpenters’ support was extremely important to the overall unity of the Building Trades Department. By 1916, not only had the Carpenters rejoined the Department, but the Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International had also been granted a charter as a Department affiliate. “For the first time in the history of the Building Trades movement of our country, ” declared Department President ThomasJ. Williams, “we are all united. What an era of possibilities stretches in front of us. What an opportunity to make our united Building Trades Depart¬ ment respected by our own membership in the first place, and by the contractors and the public in general.” Once united in purpose, the Building Trades Department also grew in numbers. By 1917, the Department had reached the formi¬ dable membership of 567,508, more than one-fifth of the entire AF of Growth within the building trades occurred against the backdrop of increasing tensions during World War I in Europe. With the two years old, the United States joined in April 1917. Americans, though reluctant to enter the conflict, quickly backed the govern¬ ment in its decision to defend Europe against the strong and increas¬ ingly aggressive German power. Building tradesmen provided the manpower and skilled labor which fueled America’s war effort. But while building tradesmen put their full effort behind the war, tensions remained within the labor community. President Woodrow Wilson established the Wage Ad¬ justment Commission during the war in order to reach agreements wage settlements in a time when organized labor had pledged not to strike. AF of L President Samuel Gompers, who played a key role in the establishment of the Wage Adjustment Commission, was put in an extremely delicate position because of dual loyalties — to thehundreds of thousands of working people he represented and to the millions of Americans behind the war effort. Gompers appointed John Alpine, then president of the United Association, to the Wage Adjustment Commission to represent the interests of building tradesmen. In the complex atmosphere of war¬ time, Alpine worked out a compromise agreement with the other Commission members whereby local union rates were paid on con¬ struction, but the union shop was not guaranteed on government- supported work. This caused considerable discontent among union members, who bers included: Cement Workers, Electrical Workers, Granite Cut¬ ters, Hod Carriers, Marble Workers, Sheet Metal Workers, Stone Cutters, Amalgamated Carpenters, Steam and Hot Water Fitters. Three other unions — Composition Roofers, Asbestos Workers andthe Slate and Tile Roofers — were unchartered members at the firstconvention. The Building Trades Department spent the first years of its ex¬ istence attempting to grapple with the problem which served as one of the principal reasons for its founding — how to solve the jurisdic¬ tional problems which threatened to fragment the trades. Rising above all jurisdictional disputes, however, was the clear realization by building tradesmen that a strong spirit of unity was vital to the organizing job that had to be done in the face of a bitterly anti-union business community. The owners of the Los Angeles Times , particularly guilty of egre¬ gious conduct toward unions, waged a long and bitter war not only against in-house organizing efforts, but espoused anti-union rhetoric in their editorial pages. On October 1, 1910, Iron Worker James J. McNamara acted in¬ dependently to bomb the Times building, killing 21 persons. McNa¬ mara vigorously maintained his innocence of the charges, and was supported in his case by nearly the entire labor movement. The famous lawyer Clarence Darrow worked in McNamara’s defense, and numerous well-known labor leaders helped raise money for the trial. L. war In the end, however, McNamara confessed that he had committed the crime in an excess of vengeful sentiment. The unfortunate con¬ sequence of the act, as is the case in many such instances, was the creation of even greater anti-union hysteria and scapegoating. The labor movement, shaken by both the incident and the wild anti-labor sentiment surrounding it, nevertheless continued to forge ahead during difficult times. The Department attempted various plans to arrive at a workable framework for decreasing jurisdictional disputes. The Executive Council, which was established as a guiding body for the Depart¬ ment, at the 1912 convention proposed a scheme which both urged international unions to consolidate and proposed an authority which would settle jurisdictional questions. At the 1913 convention, Department President James Short pro¬ posed the adoption of the following resolution to resolve jurisdiction¬ al disputes: “The jurisdictional decisions of the Building Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor are absolute and binding and are not subjects for arbitration.” This proposal was defeated, however, as were others while the jurisdictional question continued to vex the building trades unions. on 54 sparked a strike by Carpenters in the shipyards in Staten Island and Baltimore. Other boards and commissions were also established in order to deal with the unique situations created by the war. President Wilson established the War Labor Policies Board, with Professor (and later Supreme Court Justice) Felix Frankfurter as its head. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt also served on this board. The War Labor Conference Board was established with broad authority to make policies regarding labor and management. In an early manifestation of the minimum wage, the board proclaimed “the right of all workers, including common laborers, to a living wage. . . . Minimum rates of pay shall be established which will insure the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable comfort.” In the operation of these wartime authorities, labor representa¬ tives reported the lack of cooperation from employer represent¬ atives. All too often employers were anxious to take advantage of the no-strike pledge by labor in order to advance their own cause and evade compliance with the decisions of the boards. Soon after the war, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker sub¬ stantiated the criticisms of the labor community by stating that labor proved “more willing to keep in step than capital.” The tremendous efforts of building tradesmen during the war did not go unrecognized. Building Trades Department President John Donlin spoke for many others when he told the 1919 convention: “As an American and a building tradesman, I feel proud of their achieve¬ ments, for to a very great degree, the success of our army depended upon the building trades. Our country declared war unprepared. A great army was to be mobilized, every form of appliance, every war essential had to be manufactured;everything required buildings, and the building trades proved equal to the emergency. The greatest building program the world has ever known was completed in one half the time calculated by the United States War College and others competent to estimate.” But the tremendous production effort that characterized wartime did not come without cost. An inflationary price spiral was generated by the war, and employers proved only too willing to take advantage of a situation where they could gain. “Wages did not keep pace with the increased cost of commodities,” declared Building Trades Presi¬ dent Donlin. “Big business, little business, all businessshowed a total disregard for the Government in its life and death struggle. Evident¬ ly no one expected business to be even reasonable when there was an opportunity to profiteer. Business, more subtle than labor, reaps the riches and avoids the criticism. Still the occasional murmur of the worker was magnified. He was accused of being disloyal.” v c James Kirby , president of the Carpenters and first president of the Building Trades Department. were completely willing to back the United States’ wareffort, but not at the expense of hard-won union gains. The Carpenters, led by their strong President Bill Hutcheson, argued that as long as an employer was in the middle to profit from their labor, they could see no justification for the open shop. Had they worked directly for the federal government, said Hutcheson, their loyalty would have been assured. But the government’s refusal to guarantee the union shop 76 time when the building trades were most in need of unity in order to combat the increasingly virulent anti-union sentiment among em¬ ployers. The open shop movement grew precipitously during the 1920s, and had the audacity to label its anti-union campaign “The American Plan/’ a noble-sounding banner of empty rhetoric. Many employers were rebelling against the new position of recognition which the labor movement had achieved during the war. But even with the cards stacked heavily against the trade unionists, the growth of the democratic ideal of working collectively to achieve common goals was inevitable. The motto of the American Plan was: “Every man to work out his own salvation and not to be bound by the shackles of organization to his own detriment.” But workers all over the country and in all types of occupations rallied to the cause of solidarity: “In unity there is strength.” During the 1920s, as the economy was continuing to grow after the war, the open shop became a recognized technique for denying the whole process of collective bargaining. Some employers reacted to growing unionism by adopting paternalistic management policies designed to mollify workers. They voluntarily granted wage in¬ creases and established better working conditions. But this small group of employers, in its attempt to forestall the growing trend toward unionism, was merely attempting to silence the democratic voice of the worker as projected through his union. A much more prevalent response of employers however, was to wage an all-out war on unions. In their eager attempt to thwart the power of unions, employers organized into open shop associations in every part of the country. These groups mushroomed in thousands of localities around the nation, with New York servingas the home of 50 open shop associations at one time, Illinois 46, Massachusetts 18 and Michigan 23. Representatives from these local associations met at a conference in Chicago in 1921 in order to plot strategy and exchange ideas. When they split up to return to their local groups, they had a large supply of anti-union rhetoric to fuel their local publications. One Washington, D.C. open shop publication shows the general trend of the anti-union rhetoric of the time. “Union labor wage regulation boosts rent and building costs,” reported the open shop association. “See it for yourself : Union carpenters in Washington are paid $1.05 per hour ; in Baltimore 80 cents per hour . . . The man who is getting a house built in Washington pays an extra 25tf an hour in every carpenter's day because the union says he must.” This tired old rhetoric is still being repeated today by similar organizations. They continue to distort the facts which have been well documented in numerous reliable studies. Recently, for ex¬ ample, one study showed statistically why union workers receive higher wages — they are far more productive. According to the ft ! 3LlL2 * f *i i i i An early gathering of the leaders of the Building Trades Depart¬ ment. Soon after the war, the Building Trades Department set back to the task of acquiring more work for its members and resolving the thorny jurisdictional disputes which continued to hinder the effec¬ tiveness of the trades. During the war, private buildingand construc¬ tion had dropped off by 90 percent due to the near total transforma¬ tion to a government-financed wartime economy. After the war, the Department worked for the establishment of the National Board for Jurisdictional Awards in the Building Industry in order to bring peace to the trades. Department President Donlin, Department Secretary William J. Spencer, William Dobson of the Bricklayers, Carpenters President William Hutcheson and Sheet Metal Workers President John Hynes represented the building trades in discussions held with representa¬ tives from the Department of Labor, the American Institute of Architects, the Associated General Contractors of America and the National Association of Builders Exchanges. Shortly thereafter, at the 1919 convention, delegates elected Dob¬ son, Hutcheson and Hynes to represent the building trades on the impartial jurisdictional tribunal. The establishment of the jurisdictional disputes board came at a> 98 were augmented by nation-wide campaigns led by organizationssuch as the National Association of Manufacturers. Rather than spend its money to raise wages or benefit workers, the National Association of Manufacturers in 1921 published a slick “Open Shop Encyclopedia for Debaters,” which it described as a reference book for use by teach¬ ers, students and public speakers. The book served as a propaganda tool to spread the anti-union message. Indicative of the depth of anti-union sentiment in society in the early 1920s was a Chicago court decision which had a stunning effect on the building trades. When building trades unions struck in 1921 over wage rates, the decision eventually went to Federal Judge Kennesaw M. Landis for arbitration. Judge Landis, who later gained fame as the hard-nosed judge who cleaned up major league baseball, ordered a 25 percent reduction in wage rates from the 1914 level (which was even lower than the employers had agreed to pay), barred work stoppages, permitted hiring non-union men when union men were not available, permitted journeymen to use the tools of any trade, and permitted no restriction of output, machinery, methods and appliances, or raw materials. In addition, Landis ruled that the employer had the right to fire anyone, and foremen were considered exclusively the agents of the employer. Though the Landis decision lasted only two years, it represents a dark period not just in building trades history, but in the struggle for workers’ rights. Employers formed a committee to enforce the deci¬ sion and imported out-of-town labor, employed guards and hired a corps of detectives to inspect jobs tosee that the award was enforced. Unions that would not comply with the decision were systematically boycotted. The decade of the 1920s is generally remembered asone of prosper¬ ity for the American economy. But little of the wealth trickled down to the struggling American worker. While there was a boom in construction — new schools were built with gymnasiums, swimmingpools, cafeterias and other modern amenities — wages never keptpace with inflation. Indeed, Labor Department studies for 1921 and 1922 showed that 90 percent of working people failed to earn the $2,000 to $2,500 a year necessary for a “minimum health and decency budget.” Despite the fact that wages were trailing inflation, the increase in construction brought an increase in jobs, and with that, an increase in membership throughout the building trades. In the first half of 1926 alone, the Building Trades Department gained 30,000 new members, as unions successfully organized large projects and settled jurisdic¬ tional disputes. This brought the total to more than 570,000 for the year for the 16 international unions which comprised the Depart¬ ment. But as the decade wore on, more of the nation’s available capital study, conducted at a major university, union construction workers have an output at least 29 percent greater than non-union workers. The productivity study also shows that if the extra productivity is entirely attributable to labor, union members are at least 38 percent more productive than other workers in construction. But during the 1920s, the anti-union rhetoric was just reflective of a larger anti-union bias throughout the entire society. Anti-union laws prevailed because many members of Congress and state legisla¬ tures were anti-union. The courts handed down anti-union decisions because many judges followed the prevailing bias in favor of employ¬ ers. Thus the open shop movement could achieve a greater degree of respectability than it deserved by enlisting the president of the United States to back its cause. President Warren Harding wrote: “Liberty is gone in America when any man is denied by anybody the right to work and live by that work. It does not matter who denies. A free American has the right to labor without any other’s leave. ...” Many workers were later to recall the words of President Harding when they were thrown out of their jobs during the Depression. Surely they could agree that the right to work was one of the most fundamental of American principles. But the surest way to achieve the goal of full employment for all was not through open-shop cut¬ throat competition between workers which only drove wages lower and lower. It later became clear that the process of cut-throat competition between workers left them with not enough money to eat, let alone buy the thousands of new products which were being mass produced in the new technological society. It was the low wages of workers during the 1920s which eventually brought the wheels of industry grinding to a halt in the Depression when they simply did not have enough money to buy the goods which they produced. But the anti-union sentiment prevailed among a great many Amer¬ icans as the open shop movement took hold. Senator Porter J. McCumber of North Dakota spoke against the Washington, D.C. union’s request for a wage increase to keep pace with inflation: “Is it not understood that when, in building a hotel here, $24 a day is paid for a plasterer, the guests of that hotel will have to pay the bill? There thousands of workers, thousands of girls and young men here in this city who are not receiving proper nourishment because they must pay out most of their salary for a little room where they can shield themselves from the cold.” [Prevailing wage at the time actual¬ ly was between $8-$9 a day.] In his statement Senator McCumber echoed the same argument that building tradesmen voiced in their attempt to get a wage in¬ crease. Inflation had forced many workers into substandard housing and left them with an inadequate diet. The efforts of local open shop associations such as the D.C. group are 1110 greatest depth of human suffering that our country has ever known. Men walked the streets in search of almost any task which would earn money for food for their families, and, when no jobs could be found at home, they began moving from city to city. Men who had spent their lives working were forced tostand in breadlines and souplines merely to get enough nourishment to go another day. The form of ‘‘welfare capitalism” which became popular during the 1920s, with employers granting benefits instead of wage increases, was suddenly withdrawn, leaving workers in the lurch. The so-called company unions provided absolutely no protection for workers, pink slips of dismissal were distributed in plant after plant in wholesale lots. The American economy ground to a halt and left workers with jobs, no food and no protection. There was no unemployment in¬ surance, social security or legal protection for the wage earner. Businesses went bankrupt at unprecedented rates, sending the economy into even greater despair, yet the Hoover Administration optimistically promised that “prosperity was just around the comer.” “Unemployment is the greatest problem that confronts us today,” resounded Building Trades Department President Michael McDon¬ ough at the 1930 convention. “A solution to this vexing problem must be found. As there has been a great decrease in building construction within the past year, many of our members have been affected, and added to the already large number of unemployed of other indus¬ tries.” President McDonough went on to call on the federalgovernment to “speed up on the public construction program for which Congress has already appropriated the necessary funds. The various states and municipalities could help by appropriating money for public works. If there is not a resumption of building construction soon, we can aid in this problem by working less hours per day.” Sadly, there was so little work to be had anywhere that the reduc¬ tion of the work week was simply not enough to begin to solve the problem of unemployment. But even from thedarkest depths of the Depression thereemerged a twinkle of light for workers. Several states passed legislation to improve working conditions. Fourteen states approved old age pen¬ sions, numerous new workmen’s compensation laws were adopted and Wisconsin pioneered the field with a new Labor Bill of Rights and unemployment insurance. On the national level, Congress passed the Norris-La Guardia Act, which outlawed the yellow-dog contract and severely curtailed the authority of the courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes. Up to that time, employers had simply gone to the courts to stop strikes, charging that they constituted a restraint of free trade. & A-V0 M irRANK RYAN.ys VICE PRESJANES G rtANNAMAN?yvc£ PRES asTM SFF: nom GEO. F. HEDRICK.ID VICE PRESWM JL SPENCERSEC. TREAS. JAMCTKIRRY PRES. CHAS If PS 5ISVICL PRES WH J.M<- SORLEV. ■�avicc PRES The first officers of the Building Trades Department, 1908. invested in speculative stock market ventures and less in the solid housing market. The construction industry began to decline in 1927, with building permits the first to drop. By 1929, the construc¬ tion industry was suffering from an investment malaise. The words of Department President William J. McSorley to the 1929 convention (held in October 1929, only weeks before the great stock market crash) seem prophetic to later readers. “Coming events cast their shadows before,” warned President McSorley. “I have not changed my mind sinceour last convention regarding the responsibil¬ ity for the decline in building permits throughout the country at that time, and I am of the opinion that our present slump in the building industry has been caused by many of the banks, corporations, build¬ ing and loan associations, and even religious institutions and associa¬ tions, sending their surplus funds into the field of brokerage loans, for the purpose of promoting stock market gambling.” When the market crashed on October 29, the effect was to evapo¬ rate, overnight, a large segment of the nation’s currency which had been circulating freely in the form of credit. When confidence evapo¬ rated, credits were withdrawn, margin was called in and stock in¬ terests sold as investors could not cover their investments and were, in effect, bankrupt. Businesses failed, and those which did not fail shortened their scopes of operation. Financing capital for building was at a complete standstill. The Depression that followed the stock market crash brought the was 1312 in the hearings before the Senate Committee on Manufactures, and the measure sailed through Congress by voice votes in both the House and Senate. The conclusion of the Committee report speaks for itself: “This measure does not require the Government to establish any new wage scales in any portion of the country. It merely gives the Government the power to require its contractors to pay their employ¬ ees the prevailing wage scales in the vicinity of the building projects. This is only fair and just to the employees, the contractors, and the Government alike. It gives a square deal to all.” Thus the Davis-Bacon Act was designed to meet the twin problems of stability of the construction industry as well as the level of wages paid to construction workers — problems which were affecting not only workers, but also their communities, the government and the contractors who supported the passage of the Act in 1931. But the passage of Davis-Bacon in 1931 could offer little immediate relief to building tradesmen, who walked the streets in droves. The nation’s economy was in astate of disintegration. Hundreds of banks, heavily laden with frozen assets, had declared themselves insolvent during the previous two years. Insurance companies, with their heavy investments in industry, commerce and real estate, were shaky. And the construction industry was at a standstill. Even the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt did not elicit great cheers from working men. To most workers Roosevelt known quantity. Many were skeptical of his Hudson Valley-Harvard background. But others were cheered by his concern for the nation’s unemployed workers. During his campaign Roosevelt listened sympathetically to labor leaders who related to him the sorry plight of the man in the street, and he promised privately and publicly to do what he could to relieve distress and improve labor conditions. As President Roosevelt clearly announced in his inaugural address “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. ... I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.” When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office with this promise of a “New Deal,” he was already surrounded by advisers with various plans to bring the nation relief from its distress, to reverse the Depression, and to make reforms which would prevent future nomic catastrophes. Among them were men who had become sincere¬ ly concerned with labor’s plight and labor’s problems, and who re¬ vealed a willingness to use the powers of the federal government to solve those problems. Given the sympathetic support of the presi¬ dent, they threw themselves headlong into the job. The New Dealers created numerous reforms in order to restore economic health to the torn nation and allow workers to get back the job. Among the most important for building tradesmen, how- While the Norris-LaGuardia Act provided unions with no new rights, it allowed them a greater degree of freedom in which to operate free from court control. This helped unions greatly to orga¬ nize, but not through any nurturing process by the government. The Act did not require workers to join unions, nor did it stop employers from preventing the development and operation of unions by methods other than the use of the injunction. But it did keep the courts from governing by injunction. Even more important for the building trades was the enactment in 1931 of the Davis-Bacon Act, which guaranteed that the prevailing wage was paid on federally-supported construction projects. The Act had gained its roots in the years before the Depression, but finally was passed by Congress in 1931. Early in 1927, Congressman Robert L. Bacon (R-N.Y.), a banker prior to his election to Congress, introduced legislation to require that local prevailing wage standards be met in federal public con¬ struction. Bacon was presenting the legislation not in response to the Depression, but to the destabilizing effects of underbidding on con¬ struction contracts. Labor standards at that time were high in Bacon’s native New York. The congressman affirmed, “wages are fair and there has been no difficulty in the building trades between employee and employer ... for some time.” But what did concern Bacon was the award of a contract for construction of a veterans’ hospital to a contractor who had won the award by underbidding his competitors by paying sub¬ standard wages. Describing this process of unregulated bidding at a congressional hearing, Bacon observed: “Of course that meant that the labor conditions in that part of New York State where this hospital was to be built were entirely upset. It meant that the neighboring community was very much upset.” Clearly, it was the destabilizing effect of unregulated bidding that concerned Bacon. In Bacon’s view, the very least the federal govern¬ ment could do when engaging in construction work was to comply with the local standards of wages and labor prevailing in the locality where the building construction was to take place. In drafting his bill, Bacon sought to stabilize the community standards by defining the prevailing local wage so that the federal government might adhere to Though Bacon introduced his legislation in 1927, 1928and 1930 and retained bi-partisan support each time, it was not until former Secre¬ tary of Labor James J. Davis was elected to the Senate that the bill got through the legislative process. Davis had served as Secretary of Labor in three Republican administrations for nearly a decade and made one of his first acts as a Senator the introduction of a companion bill to the Bacon bill in the House. The Hoover Administration fully supported the Davis-Bacon Act was an un- eco-it. on 1514 ever, were the Public Works Administration (P.W.A.) and the Works Progress Administration. Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act provided for the institution of a gigantic public works program designed to create business for heavy industries in particu¬ lar and all industry in general, and thereby to stimulate recovery and to provide employment for large numbers of workers. Congress appropriated $3.3 billion for this purpose and the president created the Public Works Administration to carry out the program. Though slow in getting off the ground, the Public Works Adminis¬ tration provided building tradesmen with jobs building many differ¬ ent types of public facilities. By 1939, the P.W.A. had spent or allocated some $6 billion for construction in all but three counties of the entire nation. The employment rolls of the P.W.A. generally ran between 200,000 and 300,000 a month as building tradesmen con¬ structed highways, post offices, courthouses, warehouses, municipal waterworks, sewage and electrical plants, hospitals and school- houses. Not satisfied with the progress of earlier legislative attempts, the Roosevelt Administration in 1935 pushed for passage of the Emergency Relief Act which was designed to provide relief work for the able-bodied unemployed on useful projects. Nearly $5 billion was appropriated to plan and administer projects, prescribe rules for the selection of workers and regulate the condition of labor. Out of this Emergency Relief Act came the Works Progress Administration. Within six months nearly 3 million workers were on the rolls of the W.P.A. Many useful projects from the construction of highways to the building of stadiums to the improvement of airplane landing fields were completed under the W.P.A. Wages were low, but workers were able to regain their pride after years of inactivity. Building tradesmen and the entire labor movement rejoiced at the passage of the most important piece of labor legislation in American history. The Wagner Act, passed in 1935, not only allowed workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, but encouraged organi¬ zation in order to further the principle of democracy. It became clear that the extension of the democratic process to the workplace was necessary and appropriate if the nation were to re¬ main free and democratic. As Senator Robert Wagner once said, “Let men know the dignity of freedom and self-expression in their daily lives, and they will never bow to tyranny in any quarter of their national life.” At the core of the Wagner Act is the principle that a free and democratic society cannot exist without a free and democrat¬ ic trade union movement. An equally important purpose of the Wagner Act was to establish more stability in the U.S. economy. New Dealers recognized that the traditional economic practices had failed to provide the nation with economic prosperity, and for some very basic reasons. Chief among USOLABOR PLAZA bemo etvchdby LABOR donated bi the BUILDING &- CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL of A.F°'L. in con/unchon with ‘ RS CO.ER CARPENTERS & ,*/ being equipped 1.0 \\ u» tr ' { L IkN/ a. A 7 i. m •••ÿ*•ÿ s 3 i/ * • : 1 i I'* ■ _ a - Ii. _ B* . 4T r- Building tradesmen contributed manpower, money and full support to the nation's war effort . these was the fact that employers who paid substandard wages to non-union employees contributed to and prolonged downturns in the business cycle because workers did not earn enough money to pur¬ chase the products which they were turning out. Collective bargain¬ ing, because it would allow workers to bargain together to earn more 1716 money, would bring the economy out of the prolonged downturn. Even many employers realized the basic problems with the tradi¬ tional economic system. As one employer put it who supported the Wagner Act: “It became obvious to the management of our company that no mass production could be earned on unless there was increased purchasing power by the great masses of people. To us this meant there must be increases in wages and shortening of hours. This became the very fixed conviction of our management. The more difficult question was as to how this should be accomplished, and we arrived at the conclusion that collective bargaining by employer and employee . . . was the only means by which, under our system, any adjustment in the equitable distribution of income could be accom¬ plished.” Industrial plants of the nation were employing many thousands of building trades mechanics in the operation, repair and maintenance of their plants. As some international unions began to give wide interpretations to their jurisdictions, conflicts arose which were not easily settled. The trade union movement was primarily built along craft lines at this time. But advocates of industrial unionism within the AF of L began to speak with a louder voice, leading the AF of L to adopt a resolution at its 1934 convention calling for the chartering of unions in the “auto¬ mobile, cement, aluminum, and such other mass production and miscellaneous industries.” This action sparked a slow burning conflict between industrial unions that anxiously wanted to organize plants, and craft unions that maintained that their long-standing craft jurisdictions were being violated. Eventually, the issue came toa head at the 1935 AF of L convention when two separate reports were submitted by the resolutions committee. The majority report declared that the AF of L guaranteed “to protect the jurisdictional rights of all trade unions organized upon craft lines.” Accordingly, industrial charters would violate the agree¬ ment that had always existed between the federation and its craft affiliates. The minority report insisted that in any industry where the work performed by a majority of the workers fell within the jurisdic¬ tional claim of more than one craft union, industrial organization was “the only form that will be acceptable to the workers or adequately meet their needs.” The convention overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the majority report, which affirmed the jurisdictional divisions along craft lines. Following the convention, industrial unionists formed the Commit¬ tee for Industrial Organization, later to become the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), and the labor movement began a 20-year split. During this same period, a split developed within the Department, which was resolved with a reunion of two factions at its 1935 conven¬ tion in Atlantic City. It was also at this convention that the Depart¬ ment recognized the broadened range of its membership and changed its name to its present form — the Building and Construction Trades Department. The Depression, long and devastating in its effects, was finally ending as the decade of the 1930s came to a close. But there was no time for American workers to rest. In the early morning of Decem¬ ber 7, 1941, the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into the most destructive war in world history. Immediately, building tradesmen mobilized to meet the challenge of supplying the nation’s construction needs during the war. Even in the months and years before the attack at Pearl Harbor, building tradesmen had been hard at work helping to supply America’s allies in the war effort. Since the fall of France the defense program in the United States had been operating in earnest. Employment in public construction increased from 552,000 in May 1940 to 953,000 a year later. Total construction employment was to reach the all-time peak of 2.9 million three months before Pearl Harbor. The defense program was making extraordinary demands for skilled labor which resulted in serious shortages at some defense projects located in isolated areas. Competition developed for labor, and double-time rates were used to attract men to these isolated projects. In order to deal with this situation, the Office of Production Management called a meeting between government contracting agencies and the Building and Construction Trades Department to attempt to stabilize wages in the segment of the construction indus¬ try employed on national defense projects. A month of conferences between the Army and Navy contracting agencies and the Department leaders produced the historic Wage Stabilization Agreement. The agreement provided for a no-strike pledge by building tradesmen and established a Board of Review to settle any issues that might arise. In addition, the agreement pro¬ vided for uniform overtime rates and uniform shift pay on all national defense projects. Once the war began, the cooperative spirit shown in the Stabiliza¬ tion Agreement strengthened, as the entire labor movement heeded the call of the AF of L Executive Council to “unite in unanimous support of the President, of our nation and its allies for the prosecu¬ tion of total war for the preservation of democracy here and through¬ out the world.” At the request of President Roosevelt, labor and management entered into an agreement for the duration of the war which was designed to keep industrial peace in wartime. Both business and 18 19I more did the same at Guam and Wake Island. In the states, building tradesmen eagerly signed up to help in the defense effort on island outposts. Within two days in December 1941, more than 3,000 build¬ ing tradesmen registered at the state employment office in New York City for shipyard jobs in the Pacific war zone. Similar reports came from around the country. The building trades not only cooperated with the no-strike pledge, but also signed the historic Wage Stabilization Agreement in May 1942 in order to curb the growing menace of inflation. The agreement provided that on all construction work financed by the government, wage rates paid under collective bargaining agreements as of July 1, 1942 should remain in effect for at least one year, subject to annual renewal of the agreement for the duration of the war. In addition, the agreement provided for a Wage Adjustment Board to determine whether wage increases should be made, and in what amount. Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel W. Tracy paid particular tribute to building tradesmen at the 1943 convention: “When the nation called for skilled craftsmen, either to build or fight, or to do both, in any part of the United States, or in any part of the world, the Building and Construction Trades of the American Federation of Labor were not only ready and willing but anxious to go ‘all out’ for victory.” In the spring of 1943, building tradesmen paused from wartime activities to mourn the death of Department President John P. Coyne. President Coyne had led the Department admirably during the difficult war period. Constantly traveling to assist in the timely construction of Army camps, airfields and naval training stations across the nation, Coyne also served on the War Adjustment Board created by Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. Second Vice Presi¬ dent Richard J. Gray succeeded President Coyne as leader of the Department. Americans experienced a temporary sense of joy in 1944 when D-Day signaled the beginning of the end of war in Europe. But a big push was necessary to bring peace both in Europe and in the Pacific. In the fall of 1944, the federal government issued an emergency call to the Building and Construction Trades Department to supply man¬ power to produce increased quantities of critically needed materials. The War Department called for 10,000 workers to be rushed at once to 38 war plants to make bombs, heavy artillery, radar, heavy trailers, assault wire, heavy shells, aircraft propellers, rockets and rocket launchers, batteries and other essential war items. The efforts of building tradesmen at this critical time helped to turn the tide in Europe and bring victory over Hitler’s Nazis. The efforts of building tradesmen and the entire nation finally came to fruition on May 7, 1945 when Germany surrendered uncondi¬ tionally to the Allies — only a month after the death of President labor agreed to the following program: no strikes or lockouts for the duration, peaceful settlement of industrial disputes and the creation of a War Labor Board to handle all disputes which could not be solved through normal procedures. In essence, labor surrendered its most potent weapon and sus¬ pended collective bargaining procedures and put its future in the hands of the Board. This arrangement worked well for labor and the government with one notable exception. Coal strikes swept the nation during the early months of 1943. The United Mine Workers, led by John L. Lewis, defied the National War Labor Board and would not cooperate with it to find a peaceful solution for the coal disputes. At times, its officers even refused to attend the coal dispute hearings conducted by the Board. This uncooperative stance by the Mine Workers created an anti¬ labor sentiment in the Congress and the nation which resulted in the War Labor Disputes Act. The Act gave sweeping authority to the president to seize war facilities; made it a criminal offense to in¬ stigate, direct or aid a strike in a government-seized plant; gave the National War Labor Board statutory authority and defined its powers; prohibited labor organizations from contributing funds for political purposes; and, finally, outlawed strikes in privately oper¬ ated war plants unless and until thirty-day strike notices had been filed and a strike vote taken to indicate the strike desires of war workers. All of labor decried the excessively restrictive law. President Roosevelt vetoed the law, declaring that: “All labor as well as American business gave their ‘no-strike, no-lockout’ pledge after the attack on Pearl Harbor. That pledge has been well kept except in the case of the leaders of the United Mine Workers. For the entire year of 1942, the time lost by strikes aver¬ aged only 5/100ths of 1 percent of the total man hours worked. The American people should realize that fact — that 99and 95/100 percent of the work went forward without strikes and that only 5/100ths of 1 percent of the work was delayed by strikes. That record has never before been equaled in this country.” But Congress would have nothing of the president’s veto and promptly overrode it. Though the War Labor Disputes Act had little real effect during the war, it proved to be an ominous sign for the future. For the underlying mood of the country was changing from the pro-labor days of the New Deal to the anti-labor era of Taft- Hartley and Landrum-Griffin. Certainly, labor’s patriotic backing of which President Roosevelt spoke was nowhere better exemplified than in the building trades. When the Japanese attacked Midway, 700 building tradesmen who were working on construction projects on the island laid down their tools to assist the Navy and Marines in their fight. Four hundred 2120 Roosevelt. Just three months later, peace reigned throughout the world when theJapanese surrendered. The dropping of the devastat¬ ing atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ushered in an entirely new atomic age and forever changed the meaning of war. Sadly, the tremendous patriotic effort put out by labor during the war was frequently not matched by business. Towards the end of the war, a Senate Finance Commission report revealed scandalous war profits made by American corporations. The report listed few names, but showed that more than 200 companies were guilty of profiteering. Of those 200, 19 companies making perishable tools were shown to be making profits 11 times their pre-war (1936-39) average. Profits for 18 lumber companies for the same period were shown to have quadrupled. But rather than focus on the profit-hungry attitude of business, the press continued its anti-labor bent, rousing repressive sentiment in the nation. Both the general public and the Congress cried that industrial conflict had grown too great and called for revision of the nation’s labor laws. Congress responded with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, a law which vastly restricted trade unions. The purpose of the Act, the preamble explained, was to assist the free flow of commerce through support of collective bargaining. But since unions might restrict the free flow of commerce through collective bargaining, the Act was also intended to restrain such behavior. While the Act approved bona fide collective bargaining and assured employees that they had the right to organize and bargain collectively, it alsoasserted that individuals had the right to refuse to join unions under certain circumstances. It specifically outlined unfair labor practices on the part of unions, including: 1) the closed shop; 2) inducing an employer to discriminate against an employee who had been discharged from a union for any reason other than the failure to pay dues; 3) restraint or coercion of employees in their right to organize into trade unions; 4) refusal to bargain collectively with any employer; 5) inducing a strike or boycott with the purpose of forcing an employer to institute a closed shop or recognize a union not certified by the NLRB, or to force the management into recognizing a union when another had been certi¬ fied by the board, or to force management toassign work to members of a certain union or craft when the employer was already complying with an NLRB certification order; 6) charging excessive initiation fees when a union shop was in existence; and 7) attempting to cause an employer to pay for work not actually performed. The bill was immediately bitterly criticized by the entire labor movement and vetoed by President Truman. In vetoing the bill, Truman declared: “The bill taken as a whole would reverse the basic direction of our national labor policy, inject the Government into private economic affairs on an unprecedented scale, and conflict with important princi¬ ples of our democratic society. Its provisions would cause more strikes, not fewer. It would contribute neither to industrial peace nor to economic stability and progress. It would be a dangerous stride in the direction of a totally managed economy. It contains seeds of discord which would plague this Nation for years to come.” Congress, however, overrode the president’s veto and Taft- Hartley became law. Charging that the law was “conceived in a spirit of vindictiveness against unions,” AF of L President William Green objected vigorously on the behalf of labor. In particular, labor ob¬ jected to Section 14(b), which permitted states to outlaw union shops even though the Taft-Hartley Act approved of them — an openinvitation to engage in union busting under the wing of the law. But while the anti-labor mood persisted in the nation, the country was also experiencing the tremendous post-war construction boom which brought hundreds of thousands of jobs to building tradesmen. Building tradesmen were back at their jobs, but often lacked the necessary supplies tocarry out a construction agenda of such gigantic proportions. In many instances, these shortages had the unfortunate consequence of driving up building costs. During the early post-war period, the Civilian Production Admin¬ istration, successor to the War Production Board, set materials controls which were designed to favor the returning veteran and his family who were looking for housing. But the whole period of con¬ trolled materials was a distressingone in many ways for the construc¬ tion worker. Dissatisfaction with the general plan resulted in the appointment of a Facilities Review Committee toease hardship cases and speed general construction. Controls were a constant headache and remained such until the pipelines of construction materials filled up to supply an industry which was straining at the industrial leash. But even the nagging controls could not quell the enthusiasm of a growing society which was swiftly moving into its most productive period in history. Building tradesmen took part in more than $12 billion worth of construction during 1946 and an additional $9 billion during the first eight months of 1947. By 1950, new construction had reached a total of almost $25 billion — an astounding tribute to theability of building tradesmen to switch from a wartime economy to the engine of peace. Housing, stores, factories, hospitals, schools and other community facilities had to be built for the society which was quickly moving into its “baby boom” era. Perhaps the most significant event of the post-war period was the merger of the AF of L and the CIO. The two organizations began working together as early as 1946 through joint committees to fight anti-labor legislation, eliminate raiding, establish procedures to arbi¬ trate jurisdictional disputes and to establish effective machinery for 22 23 political action. These cooperative efforts eventually led to the establishment of a Unity Committee which was assigned the task of developing plans for a total merger. With the goal of creating “a single trade union center . . . which will preserve the integrity of each affiliated national and internation¬ al union,” the Unity Committee began meeting in October 1954. When the Unity Committee had agreed on the terms of the merger, they presented the proposal to the executive bodies of the AF of L and the CIO, which both promptly ratified it. The objectives and principles of the new organization, as worked out in the constitution were as follows: 1) to aid workers in securing improved wages, hours, and working conditions with due regard for the autonomy and integrity of affiliated unions; 2) to promote the organization of the unorganized into unions of their own choosing, giving recognition to both craft and industrial unionism; 3) to encour¬ age formation of local, state and local central bodies, and nationals, and the affiliation of such organizations with the new federation; 4) to encourage all workers without regard to race, creed, or national origin to share in full benefits of unionism; 5) to secure legislation which would safeguard and promote the principle of free collective bargaining; 6) to protect and strengthen the nation’s democratic institutions; 7) to give constructive aid in promoting the cause of peace and freedom in the world; 8) to preserve and maintain the integrity of each affiliated union in the organization; 9) to encourage the sale and use of union-made goods and union services and to promote the labor press; 10) to protect the labor movement from any and all corrupt influences and from the undermining efforts of com¬ munist agencies and all others who were opposed to the basic princi¬ ples of democracy; 11) to encourage workers to register and vote and to exercise their full rights and responsibilities as citizens, at the same time preserving the independence of the labor movement from political control. AF of L and CIO executive committees ratified the new constitu¬ tion with a speed that amazed the nation. Building tradesmen could take particular pride in the merger as plumber George Meany was elected to lead the new organization which unified the labor move¬ ment. There was much for building tradesmen to be proud about as the Building and Construction Trades Department came upon the fiftieth anniversary of its chartering. In 1957, the Department represented 1.7 million construction workers across the nation. The Building and Construction Trades Department and its affiliated unions were con¬ stantly in the vanguard in the struggle to protect the rights of working people everywhere. But there wasn’t much time for self-congratulation. As usual, there were challenges and problems to overcome. The year 1958 « i»» 4 L iiVf is-I r % *I'TP "VA BPP' si pv w f “City Building” by Thomas Hart Benton. marked the eve of a new era for America and for the American labor movement. Some of the problems the Department faced were old, some were new, and all demanded the same steadfast determination to succeed that had seen building tradesmen through a multitude of struggles and threats. An on-going problem that plagued the Department in the late 1950s was the occurrence of persistent jurisdictional disputes with (i the industrial unions which had recently merged with the AF of L. All too often, skilled building tradesmen stood by and watched as members of industrial unions built new plants, built additions to factories or performed maintenance construction such as re-roofing of manufacturing facilities. Such incursions into areas of work tradi¬ tionally performed by skilled craftsmen bred ill will and unrest in many situations. Pickets, counter-pickets and grievances snarled production schedules and strained tempers at a time when unity was as important as ever to the labor movement. Realizing that jurisdiction would be a source of conflict between 24 25 to expel the International Brotherhood of Teamsters from mem¬ bership in the federation. This action was not taken lightly or with relish. At the time of the expulsion, the Teamsters was the single largest union in the AFL- CIO. Ousting the union meant splitting unions apart, a thought alien to men who had dedicated their lives to solidarity within the labor movement. Forcing the Teamsters out of the federation divided the house of labor and carried the threat of renewed inter-union conflict like that which had forced the industrial unions away from the AF of L in the 1930s. With these thoughts in mind, the Executive Council of the Building and Construction Trades Department voted on the Teamsters’ affiliation in January 1958. When the voting was done, the Teamsters had been expelled. The Council decided to back the federation and show the world that corruption has no place in the American labor movement. As a result of the investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Labor Management Racketeering, there was a renewed call by anti¬ labor forces for legislation to bring organized labor under the close scrutiny of the federal government. While the idea of legislation to fight labor corruption was one with which unions agreed, there was much disagreement on how the law should operate. Building Trades legislative specialists, along with the AFL-CIO, lobbied Congress for a fair and reasonable bill that would help end corruption on both sides of the negotiating table. Among those members of Congress fighting for fair treatment of unions was a young senator named John F. Kennedy. Despite the introduction of a much fairer bill co-sponsored by Senator Kennedy, and despite the labor movement’s intense support of the Kennedy bill, Congress passed the highly restrictive Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act in 1959. Passage of the law meant that, unlike any other institution in the country, organized labor would be constantly answering to the federal government. Under the law, which became known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, the government was given authority to supervise union elections, in¬ spect financial records, determine the interval between union con¬ ventions and elections, and otherwise oversee the operations of the labor movement. For organized labor, which prides itself on its democratic principles, this law was a slap in the face and an insult to the thousands of dedicated, hard working union officials who had never betrayed the trust placed in them by their fellow workers. As it had in the past, the United States called upon building tradesmen in the late 1950s and early 1960s to bring the nation’s defenses up to date. An ambitious program to install intercontinental ballistic missiles across the country depended on the speed and quality with which silos could be built. True to form, skilled crafts- the newly united unions, AF of L and CIO leaders had met repeated¬ ly before the reunification convention in hopes of coming to an under¬ standing of the division of labor between craft and industrial unions. Unfortunately, they were never able to reach an agreement. After the merger, meetings continued with the involvement of the federa¬ tion’s highest officers, but still there was no resolution to the vexing problem. Finally, in late 1957, thanks to the efforts of a special committee chosen by the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO, an agreement was reached between the unions affiliated with the Build¬ ing and Construction Trades Department and most of the industrial unions which made up the Industrial Union Department. This under¬ standing, and the dispute resolution mechanism created later, sub¬ stantially reduced the number of jurisdictional disputes between the departments. It did not, however, completely solve this complex problem, and jurisdiction would be a point of conflict between craft and industrial unions for years to come. The Department’s first fifty years came to a conclusion with the organization’s leaders facing one of the most difficult decisions ever thrust upon a group of labor leaders. In January 1958, the members of the Department’s Executive Council had to decide if they should concur with the actions of the AFL-CIO and expel the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers from the Department. While there had been allegations of corruption against the Team¬ sters for many years, the situation came to a head in 1957 when the Senate Select Committee on Labor Management Racketeering de¬ termined that Teamsters President Dave Beck was guilty of remov¬ ing funds from the union treasury for personal use. The evidence presented at the hearings led the Committee to conclude that other high ranking Teamsters officials were guilty of violating the trust placed in them by union members. Revelations made by the Commit¬ tee prompted AFL-CIO President George Meany to start an in¬ vestigation into the Teamsters by the federation’s Ethical Practices Committee. At the outset of its investigation, the Ethical Practices Committee stated that it was searching for evidence that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was “. . . dominated, controlled or sub¬ stantially influenced by any corrupt influence.” In the opinion of the Committee’s members, such evidence was uncovered and as a result, Dave Beck was suspended from his position on the AFL-CIO Execu¬ tive Council and the union was suspended from membership in the federation. President Meany then explained to the Teamsters’ lead¬ ership that the union would be expelled from the AFL-CIO at the December 1957 convention unless reform initiatives were under¬ taken. The Teamsters never responded; and on December 6, 1957, it was the sad duty of the delegates to the AFL-CIO convention to vote 2726 mm—men finished the work on time or ahead of schedule in almost every case. This was accomplished despite frequent design changes that called for reconstruction of nearly complete installations. Unfortu¬ nately, this fine work went unnoticed for the most part, as organized labor became a scapegoat for the tardy completion of the missile system. Vicious press items and public statements by anti-labor politicians sought to blame building tradesmen for delays for which they were not responsible. As a result of the public outcry generated by these misleading stories, and even though tradesmen had given a no-strike pledge, the federal government authorized creation of the Missile Sites Commission, an unnecessary panel designed to keep labor peace on defense construction projects. Sadly, this was an example of what anti-labor forces could accomplish through distor¬ tion of the facts. On April 1, 1960, the Building and Construction Trades lost the services of a most able leader when Richard J. Gray stepped down after 17 years as president. Cornelius J. Haggerty, a prominent building trades leader from California, was chosen to succeed Mr. Gray and the Department continued to move ahead with its usual effectiveness. In 1957 and 1958, the country again fell into recession, and the construction workers suffered greatly. However, led by heavily in¬ creased spending in the construction industry, the economy began a spirited recovery later in 1958. Some 50 billion dollars in new con¬ struction and 16 billion dollars in renovation work were invested in 1958, a sign of the boom that was to come in the 1960s. But even as construction spending rose, unemployment among building trades¬ men stayed high. Between 1957 and 1962, unemployment in the construction industry had never been less than 12 percent. This was due, in part, to technological advancements that allowed fewer work¬ ers to do the job and to an increasing pool of skilled workers seeking employment. The inauguration of John F. Kennedy as America’s youngest presi¬ dent in January of 1961 marked the beginning of one of the most turbulent, progressive and wondrous decades in the nation’s history. The New Frontier described by President Kennedy encompassed technology, civil rights, the economy and other aspects of American life, as the country sought to adjust to changes, challenges and opportunities unimagined only a few years before. The events, trends and attitudes of the sixties were to affect building tradesmen along with the rest of American society. In its continued effort to end the inter-union strife that still bedev¬ iled industrial and craft unions, the AFL-CIO ratified Article XX of the federation constitution in 1961. This new passage set forth a no-raiding system in which an impartial umpire would resolve com¬ plaints from one union against another. The decisions of the umpire *i £ ;J$ HI 1 • JXi IIf «• iw ft x m k. Delegates from around the nation gather for the conference of the Building and Construction Trades Department. (Circa 1958) are binding upon both parties. While there were the expected skep¬ ticisms and suggestions to improve the article, it has served very well to help alleviate internal strife the labor movement can ill afford. As the 1960s got under way, building tradesmen pushed hard for legislation that would provide for the growing needs of the nation and help put craftsmen back to work. The tremendous population growth of the post-war baby boom and suburban growth created a desperate need for housing, hospitals, schools, roads and sewer facilities. Thanks in part to the active role taken by building tradesmen in the 1960 and 1962 elections, government leaders began to recognize the importance of the various construction programs supported by the Department. In 1962, Congress passed such bills as the Public Works Acceleration Program, the Rivers and Harbors Projects Program, a housing program for the elderly and the Federal Highway Act. These programs and others provided large sums of money for construction, and all contained the wage protections of the Davis-Bacon Act. Even after the tragic death of President Kennedy, who had sup¬ ported many of the bills backed by labor, America continued forward with a program of construction and revitalization. All of these pro- 2928 was further given the responsibility of reviewing the voting laws of states with poor records in protecting voters' rights. In 1965, the nation became further involved in the war in Vietnam. Up to this point, America's involvement had been limited. But prompted by an attack on American warships patrolling off the coast of Vietnam, President Johnson declared his intention to put all the nation’s might into the battle to stop communist aggression in South¬ east Asia. As in the past, union craftsmen heeded their nation’s call to arms. Thousands of building tradesmen served in the armed forces constructing facilities designed to improve the life of the Vietnamese people, as well as building military facilities. At home, union mem¬ bers made their support of their country clear in speeches by leaders and in mass demonstrations by rank and file members. On August 9, 1965, fifty-two building tradesmen were killed in an explosion and a flash fire deep underground while engaged in modify¬ ing a site in the Titan Missile Complex at Searcy, Arkansas. As an editorial in the Washington Daily News commented, “They were soldiers in the battle for national safety as truly as American service¬ men who have been killed in Vietnam.’’ The memory of these national heroes was honored at the 1965 Building and Construction Trades Department convention with a resolution and a minute of silent prayer. Perhaps because of their combined size and importance in society, the building trades unions became a target for charges of discrimina¬ tion in employment. As early as 1963, BCTD officials found them¬ selves answering reckless charges to the effect that the building trades unions barred or discouraged minority membership by keep¬ ing minority applicants out of apprenticeship programs. These accusations*, which had been made by people unfamiliar with the requirements for craft training, were given widespread attention and were eventually brought to the attention of the federal govern¬ ment. Once again, the labor movement found itself singled out for a problem that was widespread in society. In fact, a study sponsored by the BCTD in the wake of the discrimination charges found that the percentage of skilled minority workers was much higher in the build¬ ing trades than in the automobile, aircraft or electrical manufactur¬ ing industries, and substantially higher than in the Civil Service. To boost minority participation in apprenticeship programs to an even higher level, the Department adopted a statement calling upon every local to seek qualified minority applicants and to do all that they could to further the training and careers of these individuals. The Department also established special programs to tutor potential applicants in the skills they would need in order to participate in an apprenticeship program. In 1967, the Department joined with the federal government in the Apprenticeship Outreach Program which was aimed at recruiting apprentices from the ranks of minority grams, along with others aimed at correcting other problems in American society, came to be known as President Johnson’s Great Society program. By 1965, Congress had passed laws authorizing millions of dollars in construction to improve schools, medical facilities, depressed re¬ gions of the country and to improve or provide public utilities across the country. This massive effort was undertaken with a vision of America that she could, indeed, be a land of plenty. At this same time, the United States was building up its defenses against the threat of nuclear war and becoming involved in a con¬ ventional war in Southeast Asia that would eventually divide the nation. All of this government spending, combined with substantial cuts in personal income and excise taxes, helped bring the nation's economy to full speed by the mid-1960s. In his 1965 report to the convention, Department President Cornelius Haggerty noted that unemploy¬ ment among construction workers had fallen to four percent for the first time in a decade and that new construction put in place had reached record levels. The low level of unemployment and the successful efforts of build¬ ing tradesmen to improve their wages, working conditions and job security suggested that in many ways the period from 1963 to 1965 had been the best in the Department’s history. In addition to the large amount of federally-supported construction authorized by the government during the sixties, a large number of social programs and civil rights laws were enacted as the country became aware of its obligation to the rights of all its citizens. In both their legislative activities and in their day-to-day affairs, the building- trades wholeheartedly supported efforts to bring full equality to minority groups and to improve the standard of living for all Amer¬ icans. A cornerstone of these efforts was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which helped bring the full weight of the federal government's au¬ thority to bear in the battle to end racial discrimination. The Act empowered the federal courts to issue injunctionsagainst discrimina¬ tion in public accommodations, authorized the Attorney General to institute legal suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities, banned discrimination on federally-funded projects and in employ¬ ment opportunities, and reemphasized the government’s commit¬ ment to the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. That commitment was acted upon in 1965 with the implementation of the Voting Rights Act. This landmark law made it illegal for any state or political subdivision to impose any voting qualification or procedure designed to deny the right to vote based on race or color. The Justice Department was given the authority to file suits against jurisdictions that applied unconstitutional voting requirements and 3130 m I to exercise our responsibility to bring about this desirable objective.At the same time, we believe it will serve the public interest for laborand management in this industry to solve jurisdictional problemswith a fair maximum of practical judgment and fairness and a mini¬ mum of government intervention.” Among the changes brought about by the agreement were the addition of an Appeals Board headed by an impartial umpire with the authority to make final decisions, a rule that required the protection of consumer interests in the decision-making process, a redefinition of the criteria used in making jurisdictional decisions and a rule providing for consultation with the appropriate management groups in the negotiation of jurisdictional agreements between international unions. During the 1960s, America and the Soviet Union were involved in a race to put a man on the moon with building tradesmen playing a proud role in America’s eventual victory. Throughout the sixties, union craftsmen worked with a special sense of dedication and cooperation to build the facilities at Cape Canaveral which would send Americans into orbit, around the moon, and eventually to the moon’s surface. The construction of the Cape Canaveral Space Center (later re¬ named the Kennedy Space Center in memory of the visionary presi¬ dent) was completed under one of the earliest project agreements. These agreements, which were developed in the late fifties and early sixties, are designed to provide certain advantages to union con¬ tractors who are bidding for work on extremely large or long-running construction projects. For example, a project agreement might es¬ tablish standard overtime rates, work rules and conditions and holi¬ day schedules for every union on the job site. For a contractor who will be dealing with members of several international unions, this can make operations as well as bidding more effective. As a result of this progressive program, thousands of jobs on important construction projects have gone to union workers insuring quality workmanship and fair rates of compensation. While there are no set criteria for which projects will be granted the special status, they are, for the most part, mammoth undertak¬ ings. Since the inception of the program, some of the most notable engineering achievements have been built under project agree¬ ments, including the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline; The Kennedy Space Center; Walt Disney World and its EPCOT Center; synthetic fuels projects; atomic energy plants; and well over a hundred other pro¬ grams valued in excess of $22 billion. Project agreementsare granted at the request of contractors or local unions at the discretion of a committee of officials headed by the secretary-treasurer of the De¬ partment. Requests for project agreements are closely scrutinized by the Committee. Many are rejected as not being in the best in- '4 i ■ Xc * \ V* 4 MI Building Trades Department President Cornelius J. Haggerty ad¬ dresses building trades delegates. youth. In addition, the Department sought to recruit minority journeyman builders into the building trades unions. By 1969, the outreach programs were successful in recruitingsome 23,000 minority apprentices into the building trades. In an effort to further boost minority recruitment by unions, the federal govern¬ ment passed additional regulations mandating an increase in the number of minority craftsmen employed on federal job sites. In February 1965, another step towards unity within the building trades was taken when, at an impressive White House ceremony hosted by President Johnson, a new agreement for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes was signed by leaders of the Department and by representatives of the Associated General Contractors and the participating specialty contractors’ associations. President Johnson called it a “heartening occasion” and “a very fine example of free and responsible collective bargaining.” The basic purpose of the agreement was to effect a number of changes that management and labor felt would make the work of the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes more effective. In a joint statement, the participantssaid: “We firmly believe we have come up with a plan which will work to the best interests of the employees, the employers and the nation as a whole. It is our purpose to make the use of the new machinery to reduce substantially jurisdictional delays in private, public, and national defense construction covered by this agreement. We are determined 32 33 terests of building tradesmen, as this .special device is used only in legitimate and specific instances of need. As the 1960s came to an end, the era of worker safety dawned. In 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, creating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which was charged with setting and enforcing standards of safety and health in the workplace. Safety-related equipment and procedures for which workers had previously been forced to bargain were now mandated by law in many cases. Some 57 million workers were given added workplace protection by the new law. Combined with the Federal Construction Safety and Health Act, this was the largest step for¬ ward for worker safety in decades. Organized labor, and especially the building trades unions which had lost 25,000 of their members to work-related accidents during the sixties, celebrated the passage of the bill as a great triumph for workers on the job site. Massive defense spending to finance the Vietnam war, combined with increased government outlays for Great Society programs, forced the government into deficit spending — a posture whichinitiated the inflationary spiral that would plague the U.S. economy over the coming decade. By the start of the 1970s, the construction industry had suffered a slump, sending construction unemployment soaring to an official rate of 11.2 percent, a figure Department Presi¬ dent Frank Bonadio called “about 3 percent low.” In addition to the record interest rates that were stifling the construction industry, the federal government cancelled billions of dollars of planned construc¬ tion projects while attempting to balance the federal budget. In an effort to control the seemingly endless spiral of wage and price increases, President Nixon in 1971 acted under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 to freeze all wages and prices. Organized labor strongly opposed this measure because of its unfairness to workers. While it was easy for the federal government to keep a lid on wages through monitoring collective bargaining agreements, it was more difficult to keep prices in line. Despite the protests of wage earners, the controls were left in place for almost three years. In 1971, long-time building trades leader Cornelius Haggerty left the Department presidency. After Mr. Haggerty's resignation for health reasons, the Executive Council named then Secretary- Treasurer Frank Bonadio as his replacement. The position of secretary-treasurer was filled by the young and able president of the Lathers union, Robert Georgine. In 1974, President Bonadiostepped down, saying he believed it was time for a younger man to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, and Secretary-Treasurer Geor¬ gine was elected president. Joseph Maloney, general organizer for the International Brotherhood of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, was elected at the Department's 1975 convention to replace Mr. Georgine as secretary-treasurer. ret* KVs,m A Ay; & zz 4' , k i s%4 i b' >/ÿ§SJ 2 Afl *r\ ro m- V Long-time AFL-CIO President George Meany addresses the 1961 convention of the Building and Construction Trades Department. One of the great achievements of collective bargaining over the years has been the establishment of pension funds for workers. By the start of the 1970s, pension fund management had become big business and an integral part of the financial planning of large firms. At the time, numerous incidents of fund mismanagement and abuse 34 35 to insure that union pension moniesare invested in programs that in the best long-term interest of organized labor and the causes it supports. The Building and Construction Trades Department has made special efforts to see that such funds are invested in job- creating, nondiscriminatory and otherwise socially conscious proj¬ ects. The Pension Exposition series held in cities across the nation in 1981 and 1982 was undertaken to educate local building trades pen¬ sion officials regarding the dangers and opportunities of pension investment and acquainting them with some of the pension invest¬ ment vehicles that best serve the needs and aims of union construc¬ tion workers. In 1973, the National Joint Board was replaced with a new system for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes. The Impai’tial Jurisdic¬ tional Disputes Board came into existence on June 3, 1973, and is made up of three impartial members knowledgeable about the struction industry. William J. Cour, who had served as chairman ofthe National Joint Board for more than 12 years, was appointed chairman of the Impartial Board. With the appointment of the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board, three publications were developed to facilitate the orderly operation of the Board and provide improved avenues to settle the problems and disputes. These publications, referred to as the Green Book, the Blue Book and the Red Book, were distributed by interna¬ tional unions to all their affiliated local unions. The Green Book quotes all agreements and decisions of record; the Blue Book pro¬ vides procedures and operating guidelines for the members of the Board and those entities who are party to a jurisdictional dispute. The Red Book provides a monetary penalty schedule with which to enforce those provisions of the “Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdic¬ tional Disputes in the Construction Industry.” This plan was the outgrowth of theJurisdictional Agreement between the Building and Construction Trades Department and the National Constructors Association. had come to light; some of these situations resulted in long-tim'e employees being deprived of their rightful pensions upon retirement. Congress finally decided this wasa matter that deserved itsattention and in 1974 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) became law. Designed to insure that pension funds were properly invested and administered, the act was massive, far-reaching and complex. Literally thousands of rules and regulations were issued by the Labor Department, Treasury Department and the Internal Rev- Service, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation suddenly changing the way pension funds could operate. While the law was needed and well intentioned, it wasat odds with the reality of pension fund operations in many ways. Enforcement of some of the regulations which were first promulgated would have effectively destroyed many of the pension programs covering building trades- Realizing that the regulations issued under the Act would need constant monitoring from the labor community, the Building and Construction Trades Department decided to assist through the founding of the National Coordinating Committee on Multiemployer Plans. The organization represents the combined efforts of unions, employers, national and local multiemployer pension, welfare and other benefit funds to meet the difficult problems and decisions that must be made to assure the funds are sound and secure. The NCCMP is the ever-present representative of multiemployer plans in the forums so vital to their interests: the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, the Labor Department, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, congressional committees and the courts. Since the inception of the Committee, its work has saved multiem¬ ployer plans literally millions of dollars by securing favorable rulings procedural and paperwork issues by exposing costly technical by responsible administrative bodies. As an example, the NCCMP saved multiemployer plans $35 million by convincing the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation toallow pension plans to mail plan booklets to their members third class as opposed to first class. In 1980, ERISA was amended to protect the interests of the multiemployer plans, many of which were in danger of collapse due to the provisions of the 1974 Act. The amendments, and the subsequent regulations promulgated to effect the changes, were heavily in¬ fluenced by NCCMP. In the coming years, it will be important for union members to have such an effective voice in the pension regulation process. By the year 2000, the number of pension beneficiaries will be 16 million, and in less than a decade the number will already have reached 13 million. This means increased responsi¬ bility for NCCMP in seeing to it that multiemployer plans function under laws that work totheir benefit, and under regulations that help to maintain stability and future growth. Building Trades pension funds have also been the leaders in efforts are enue con-men. on errors As the issues affecting building tradesmen became more complex, the Department realized the need for a staff of experts who could analyze and comment on the wide variety of issues facing organized labor. In 1974, the BCTD established its Department of Research and hired a group of skilled researchers and writers toeven more prepare reports, speeches, seminars, congressional testimony and other materials in support of the Department’s positions. In addition tothese tasks, the Research Department also monitors the actions of the numerous governmental and private sector agencies and organi¬ zations whose activities have an impact on building tradesmen. The General President’s Project Maintenance Agreement, first initiated by the Department in 1956, was renewed in 1972. The purpose of the program is to provide additional work opportunities 3736 North America’s Building Trades Unions, Memorandum from Michael Braun to Tom Kriger (May 16, 2016). , ? Memo To: Tom Kriger From: Michael Braun Date: May 16, 2016 Re: New York State Apprenticeship Numbers New York Apprenticeship Training (Building Trades Fast Facts 7-21- 2015) • Number of Training Centers: 106 • Construction Workers Annual Hours: 442,806,000 • Construction Workers Annual Wages: $11,951,192,000 • Value of Construction Work: $86,642,055,000 • Wages/Hours: $26.99 • Wages/Value %: $13.79% • Active Apprentices (All Industries, from DOL-OA): 16,238 • New Apprentices (Al Industries, from DOL-OA): 3,480 • Competed Apprenticeships (All Industries, from DOL-OA): 645 • Active Programs (All Industries, from DOL-OA): 685 • New Programs (All Industries, from DOL-OA): 41 • JATC Apprenticeship Number (from ABC Study Done by BCTD, 2011): 4,625 • Total Employment (Private Construction): 396,425 • Union Members (Private Construction): 123,902 • Individuals Covered by Union Contracts (Private Construction): 127,671 • % of Union Members (Private Construction): 31.25% • % of Individuals Covered by Union Contracts (Private Construction): 32.21% New York ABC DATA (Building Trades Fast Facts 9-1-2015) • ABC General and Sub Contractors (2010): 303 • State Total of Licensed or Registered Contractors (2010): 48,785 • Total ABC State Membership: 411 • ABC Contractors as Percentage of State Total (2010): 0.62% • ABC Contractors as Percentage of ABC State Total: 73.72% ‘r ABC New York - Membership Total Number of Private Contractor! - State Total2 ABC Contractor! ai */•of State Total Coatracton as %of Chapter Total1 Empire State ABC Chapter Membership Subcontractors General Contractors Corporate Services Material Suppliers Professional Field Services Vendor Services Manufacturers Industry Organizations Program/Development Managers Engineers Architects Total NOTES Source: ABC Membership Database, 8/15/11 'includes sub and general contractors *No State license; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, total number of privately owned construction establishments, as of Dec. 2010. Chapter 213 90 55 53 0 0 0 0 0 IT 0 411 48,785 0.6% 73.7% Source: ABC Study done by BCTD NYS Building & Construction Trades Council, Constitution & By-Laws (2016) INEW YORK STATEBUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AFL-CIO CONSTITUTION & BY-LAWS 2016 % « PREAMBLE Chartered November 20, 1956 The New York State Building and Construction Trades Council has been organized to accomplish the following objectives: First: To encourage the formation of local organizations of craftsmen engaged in all types of construction work including new work, alterations, repairs, maintenance, and extension of existing facilities, and in the manufacture or preparation of materials used therein. t Second: To aid the establishment of strong and effective Building and Construction Trades Councils. Third: To foster, develop, and advance apprenticeship training and to cooperate with Federal and State agencies promoting the interests of apprenticeship training. Fourth: To promote the development of health and safety practices and procedure to the end of protecting the health and safety of tradesmen in the building and construction industry. Fifth: To protect the rights and benefits of the Building and Construction Trades workers from attacks by those enemies of Labor who would destroy us. Sixth: To assist and cooperate with other bona tide labor organizations in order to present a solid front against discrimination and injustice. Seventh: To initiate and assist in the passage of legislation to aid and protect the Building Trades workers and to cooperate with the Building and Construction Trades Department in its work at the national level. CONSTITUTION & BY-LAWS NEW YORK STATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AFL-CIO 2016 Adopted August 26, 1958 As amended Dec. 5, 1958; Aug. 26, 1960; Sept. 7, 1962; Oct. 22, 1963; Aug. 9, 1968; July 12, 1974; July 22, 1977; July 27, 1978; July 17, 1980; Aug. 27, 1982; July 25, 1984; July 23, 1986; Aug. 2-4, 1988; July 31-Aug. 2, 1990; July 28-29, 1992; June 18-20, 1995; June 30-July 2, 1998; May 20-22, 2001; June 6-9, 2004; June 7-9, 2010; August 4-6, 2013; and August 14-16, 2016. In order to accomplish these objectives, we, in convention assembled, do hereby declare the following to be our Constitution and By-Laws. » Officers Sworn in August 16, 2016 Table of Contents NEW YORK STATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO 50 State Street, 3rd Floor; Albany, NY 12206 (518) 435-9108 FAX (518) 435-9204 www.nybuildingtrades.com Name & Constituency Page 1 Page 2 Page 4 Page 13 Page 17 Page 20.......Page 21 Article I Article 11 Officers Duties of OfficersArticle III Secretary/Treasurer Lawrence Davis President James Cahill Conventions & ConferencesArticle IV Article V Finances Executive Board Article VI Amendments.Fred DeMartino . . . .Dan DeCarlo.....A1 Catalano . . .David Haines . .Gino Castignoli......Sam Fratto.....Don Winkle . .James Mahoney.....Sam Fresina . . . Dan McGraw Joseph Azzopardi . . .Mike McNally . Dan Richardson . . . .Mark Landau Asbestos Workers Boilermakers Bricklayers & Masons Carpenters Oper. Plasterers & Cement Masons Electrical Workers Elevator Constructors Iron Workers Laborers Operating Engineers Painters Plumbers & Steamfitters Roofers Sheet Metal Workers Order of BusinessArticle Vll Tom GesualdiTeamsters t ARTICLE I NAME AND CONSTITUENCY Section 1. This organization shall be known as the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council. Section 2. This Council shall be composed of bona fide local building and construction trades councils, local building and construction trades unions in good standing in the building and construction trades council in their region, any New York State organization of a particular craft, and any district council of a particular craft, provided such district council and its affiliated locals, who have full-time business agents, are members of at least one of the building and construction trades councils in the area covered by it. Section 3. Membership. Each applicant desiring to affiliate with the Council shall be required to submit a written statement covering the extent and character of its trade jurisdiction and geographical scope. Upon receipt of such written statement, the Council shall send a copy to the Executive Board. Should any member of the Board object to the affiliation of such applicant, the matter shall be referred to the full Executive Board at the next regular meeting. Section 4. Organizations affiliated with the State Building and Construction Trades Council are fully 1 t autonomous with respect to the governance of their internal affairs, but defer full and complete jurisdiction to the State Building & Construction Trades Council with respect to any matter which affects the general welfare of the building industry in the state. An affiliated body which willfully misuses its autonomy or willfully injures the work of the State Building and Construction Trades Council by acts of disobedience, rebellion, or treason, shall, by a two-thirds vote of the State Executive Board, present and voting, stand suspended or expelled, deprived of all benefits, rights and privileges accruing from membership in the State Building and Construction Trades Council. event of a vacancy in the office of Vice President, a successor shall be appointed from the same trade as the prior occupant of office upon the recommendation of the International Union of such trade. All Vice Presidents shall be appointed bySection 3. their respective International Unions and shall serve until their successors are duly appointed and installed. To be eligible for appointment by their respective International Unions, the prospective Vice President must meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) be a representative of a local union directly affiliated with the State Council; (2) be an International Representative of his/her respective trade; or (3) be a full-time paid officer of a local building trades council or district council which represents at least one local union affiliated with the State Council. The installation The affiliated bodies so suspended or expelled have a right to appeal from such decision of the State Executive Board at the next Convention. of Vice Presidents shall be immediate upon notification to the State Building & Construction Trades Council by the International Union. All officers shall, at the expiration of their terms of office, or in case of resignation, turn over to their successors all books and property belonging to the Council and render a complete report of their stewardship up to date. ARTICLE II OFFICERS Section 1. The officers of the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council shall consist of a President, no more than 18 Vice Presidents, each from a different International Union, and a Secretary- Treasurer. Section 4. The State Executive Officers shall be the President and Secretary-Treasurer. Candidates shall be eligible for election to the State Executive Office provided (a) he or she was eligible to be a delegate to the immediate past convention and is a delegate to the Section 2. The State Executive Board of the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council shall be composed of such 18 Vice Presidents. In the 2 3 t including supervision of the performance of the duties of the Secretary-Treasurer. He shall be empowered to issue such orders by and with the consent of the Executive Board of the Council that are necessary to enforce and cany out the aims and objectives in the best interest of the Council. current convention from an affiliated body in good standing in the State Council, or (b) he or she qualifies as a delegate to the current convention pursuant to Article IV § 15. Prior to the vote being taken, the Chair of the Election Committee shall appoint from those assembled delegates two clerks and one judge who shall supervise the election. Section 3. correspondence pertaining to his office and countersign with the Secretary-Treasurer all checks and orders for the payment of money. The President shall give a bond for the faithful performance of his duties in such amount as may be determined by the Executive Board. The expense of the bond shall be borne by the Council. The President shall conduct all official Section 5. Not more than two delegates from any one trade shall be eligible to hold office in thisCouncil. Section 6. Any Executive Officers of the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council whose local union or local Building Trades Council has withdrawn or has been suspended by the State Building Trades Council or the Building and Construction Trades Department respectively shall cease to be an officer of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Section 4. The President shall have the authority to interpret the Constitution and By-Laws of the Council between meetings of the Executive Board and his interpretation shall be conclusive and in full force and effect unless changed by the Executive Board or by Convention.ARTICLE III DUTIES OF OFFICERS The President shall receive for hisSection 5. services, in periodic installments, an annual salary, as may be determined from time to time by the Executive Board, and shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred. “‘President” Section 1. The President shall preside at all Conventions and Executive Board Meetings. Section 6. The State Executive Board shall designate the acting president in the absence of the President, who shall perform the duties pertaining to the office. Section 2. The President shall exercise supervision of the Council throughout its complete jurisdiction 54 t Section 7. The President shall have the right to cast a deciding vote in all cases before the Executive Board and shall have additional powers as expressly set forth herein. Section 12. The Secretary-Treasurer shall be in charge of and conserve all monies, property, and files of the Council which at all times shall be subject to the inspection of the President and the Executive Board.Section 8. Recognizing the nature of the legislative process and the speed at which decisions must be made, the President shall have the authority, after consulting with the Executive Board, to act on behalf of the Council with respect tovall legislation pending before the State legislature. Section 13. The Secretary-Treasurer shall act as Secretary for the Executive Board, but shall not be a member thereof, and shall keep a record of the minutes of the proceedings of the Executive Board. Section 14. The Secretary-Treasurer shall keep a correct and current list of all officers of the affiliated organizations. Section 9. The President shall make a report of the administration of the affairs of his office to the meetings of the Executive Board and a full report to each regular Convention of the Council. Section 1 5. The Secretary-Treasurer shall give a bond for the faithful performance of his duties in such amount as may be determined by the Executive Board. The expense of the bond shall be borne by the Council. Section 10. The appointment, compensation, direction, supervision, suspension, and removal of office employees of the Council shall be under the direction of the President. Section 16. The Secretary-Treasurer shall conduct all official correspondence pertaining to his office.“Secretary-Treasurer” Section 17. The Secretary-Treasurer shall be required to keep an itemized account of all monies received and expenditures made, and shall be required to submit his books and records to a certified public accountant for an audit. Copies of the audit shall be furnished to the Executive Board and to the Convention. Section 11. The Secretary-Treasurer shall be the financial officer of the Council and shall receive and collect all monies due the Council, which monies shall be paid out only on the approval and counter-signature of the President. In addition, the Secretary-Treasurer shall accept assignments of work from the President of the Council who shall direct and supervise their execution. 6 7 t “Executive Board”Section 18. The Secretary-Treasurer shall, sixty days prior to the Convention, send credentials in duplicate to all affiliated bodies, to be properly signed by the President and Secretary-Treasurer, the originals to be delivered by delegate to the Credentials Committee upon his arrival at the Convention. It shall be the duty of the Secretary-Treasurer to notify each member of the Executive Board every three months of local unions who are not in affiliation with the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council; and it shall be the duty of the officer to visit such local unions and use his influence in having the local union(s) affiliate with the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council. Section 21. In the event the Executive Board in its discretion should decide by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, that any officer either is not adequately discharging his duties as provided herein, or is not adequately carrying out the instructions and orders of the Board, the Board may, by means of charges, refer the matter to the next regular Convention. The delegates in open meeting assembled shall consider the charges brought by the Executive Board against any officer. Said officer shall have the right to be present and to be heard. If the delegates in open meeting assembled shall, by a majority vote, determine that the charges of the Executive Board shall be sustained, then and in that event, the chairman shall immediately suspend said officer permanently. Section 19. The Secretary-Treasurer shall make and mail to the President as well as all Executive Board members a written annual report of his activities. The Secretary-Treasurer shall be the custodian of the Archives and Seal of the Council. He shall furnish each affiliated body with a copy of the proceedings of the Convention. In the event of the suspension of any officer, he shall immediately turn over to the Executive Board all books, papers, monies, and other properties of any kind whatsoever tangible that may be in his possession which may belong to the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council.Section 20. The Secretary-Treasurer shall receive for his services an annual salary payable in monthly installments, as may be determined from time to time by the Executive Board, and shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred. Section 22. The State Executive Board shall serve as the Political Action Committee for the State Building and Construction Trades Council and may make recommendations with respect to endorsements and political contributions. The President shall have 98 t authority to make final decisions with respect to political contributions subject to a monetary limit which may be set from time to time by the Executive Board. The President shall also have authority to make final decisions with respect to endorsements after consulting with the Executive Board and other interested affiliated organizations. of such stipend shall be fixed and adjusted from time to time by the President. Section 26. Should a vacancy occur in the Executive Offices of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, the Executive Board shall be empowered to fill such vacancy.sSection 23. The Executive Board shall have full power to act upon any and all questions that may be presented to the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council for its consideration during the interim between the regular Conventions of the Council. The President and the Secretary-Treasurer shall be empowered to convene the Executive Board by the proper notification sent to all members of said Board at such times and places best suited to deal with such matters as may require the attention of said Board. Section 27. Five members shall be appointed to audit the Secretary-Treasurer’s accounts and report to the Convention before the election of officers, and all bills requested by the Committee shall be delivered without debate. Section 28. The Executive Board may take action on any matter submitted to its members by any affiliated body or through the Executive Officers. Any matter considered and agreed to by any two-thirds majority vote of the members of the State Executive Board shall become law.Section 24. In all matters requiring action by the Executive Board, the President may communicate the need for such action by phone, email, or other electronic means, and the Board may act by responding via letter, telephone, or other electronic means. Such actions so taken shall constitute action by the Board as though the Board were in formal session. Section 29. The State Executive Board shall have the right to select and appoint counsel upon its own motion or at the direction of the President if and when it is deemed necessary. Section 30. The State Executive Board shall be empowered to levy a special assessment or increase, decrease, or suspend dues collected in accordance with Article V, Section 1 by a two-thirds majority vote of Section 25. Members of the Executive Board may be paid a stipend for their services which shall not be considered reimbursement for expenses. The amount 10 11 t the Board. Any dues modification shall only be effective until the next regular convention of the Council at which time the matter shall be submitted to the delegates. Section 32. Each officer of the State Council shall take the following oath of obligation before entering upon the duties of his office: , pledge my honor that 1 will to the best of my ability, fulfill the duties devolving upon me as an officer of this Council, and that I will act in my assigned capacity for the general benefit of the members, and that I will turn over to my successor all funds, books, records, and properties in my possession at the expiration of my official term.” “I, Section 31. Recognizing that any project labor agreement entered into by an alfiHated organization has the potential to affect future project labor agreements in other parts of the state, affiliated organizations agree not to enter into any public project labor agreement until the agreement has been submitted to the State Council for review and approval subject to the terms of this provision. Upon receipt, the State Executive Board shall be responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the President with respect to all such project labor agreements. The requirements of this provision shall not apply to local (non State agency) public project labor agreements entered into by the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and Vicinity. In addition, the state Executive Board shall be responsible for reviewing and making recommendations with respect to all private project labor agreements for which a concern is brought to the attention of the State Council by an affiliated organization. Notwithstanding the above, unless six or more Board members disapprove of the proposed PLA, the final decision to approve or disapprove such agreements shall rest with the President. ARTICLE IV CONVENTIONS AND CONFERENCES Section 1. The regular Convention of the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council shall convene every three years at the call of the President at a time and place designated by him. Section 2. During all elections, the delegate shall arise when name is called and cast his ballot, unless otherwise provided for, and it is further provided that no proxies be allowed. Section 3. The State Executive Board shall act as a Committee on Credentials; all other committees shall be appointed by the President at the Convention unless otherwise provided. 12 13 t resolutions shall be referred by the chairman of the Convention to the respective committee without debate. Section 4. The standing committees of the Convention, consisting of not more than ten members each, shall be: ( 1 ) Finance and Audit; (2) Constitution and By-Laws; (3) Resolutions; and (4) Election. Section 8. The standing committees shall report in the order as they are appointed, and the Convention shall remain in session until all the business which shall come before it has been disposed of. Section 5. Each delegate shall establish his claim to a seat by credentials duly signed by President and Secretary-Treasurer of the organization he represents with seal of such thereon. Section 9. A quorum for the transaction of business shall consist of a majority of delegates entitled to the floor of the Convention.Section 6. The President shall appoint at each Convention one assistant secretary, one assistant sergeant-at-arms, messenger, and reading clerk as in his discretion he deems advisable, and said appointees shall function under the direction of the President. Section 10. Delegates to the Conventions of the New York State Building and Construction Trades Council shall be on the following basis: The sergeant-at-arms shall have charge of the door at all Conventions and meetings of the Executive Board and see that no persons enter except delegates or members of affiliated Locals or Councils, vouched for by delegates of the same. He shall allow no member to retire without permission of the presiding officer; and shall perform such other duties as the Convention may require. Local Bldg. & Const. Trades Councils . . State Organizations District Councils Local Unions with 0-150 members Local Unions with 151-300 members . . . Local Unions with 301-500 members . . Local Unions with 501-1500 members . Local Unions with 1501-3000 members Local Unions - more than 3000 members 5 delegates 2 delegates 2 delegates 2 delegates 3 delegates 4 delegates 5 delegates 6 delegates .7 delegates + 1 Additional delegate for every 1000 members i. All resolutions are requested to beSection 7. submitted one month prior to the Convention and shall be submitted only by affiliated locals, state organizations, district councils, and officers of the State Council whose dues are paid up to date. Submitted Each delegate shall be entitled to be represented by an alternate who shall have the right and privilege to participate in the proceedings in the absence of the 1514 t delegate. No alternate shall be permitted voice or vote when the delegate is present. Trades Council shall be delegates to the Convention. A State Executive Officer shall not carry a vote for a local union, state association, district council, or local building trades council unless said officer elects to decline his delegate status based on his State Executive Office position. Section 11. No delegate shall be eligible to hold any office in this Council unless his organization shall have paid all its indebtedness to the State Council up to the first day of the preceding quarter. Section 16. By virtue of their office, members of the State Executive Board shall be delegates to the Convention with all rights and privileges to voice and vote during Convention proceedings. An Executive Board member shall not carry a vote for a local union, state association, district council, or local building trades council unless said member elects to decline his delegate status based on his Executive Board position. Section 12. In the event a credential is challenged, it shall be challenged before the final report of the Credentials Committee is accepted. Section 13. No two members of the same International Union shall be eligible to act as delegates representing any local building and construction trades council. If a delegate representing a local building and construction trades council is not present, and will be represented by an alternate, such alternate must not be from the same International as any of the other delegates representing the local council. ; Section 17. A Statewide Meeting composed of the State Council Executive Officers, the Executive Board, the Presidents and Secretaries of the local councils, and representatives from the district councils and state associations shall Ineet not less than twice per year for the purpose of increased communication among the officers and the State Council. Section 14. Only delegates from affiliated local unions are eligible to serve as delegates of local building trades councils, district councils, or state associations unless said delegate is a full-time salaried officer of the local council, district council or state association s/he represents. li ARTICLE V FINANCES Section 1. Effective October 1, 2013 the revenue of the New York State Building Trades Council shall be derived from dues paid by all local unions. Dues shall Section 15. By virtue of their respective offices, the President and Secretary-Treasurer of the State Building t 16 17 t be calculated at a rate of one half cent (1/20) per hour worked per member, provided no local union shall be required to pay more than $40,000 per year. Dues shall be paid on “Building Trades” members only. Section 5. Enhancement Fund which shall be financed using the Council’s dues revenue at the Executive Board’s discretion. Disbursements from the fund shall require a two-thirds majority vote of the members of the Executive Board. The State Council may maintain an Section 2. but not required, to adopt an alternate dues calculation upon the request of (a) building trades local unions which represent maintenance divisions; and (b) local unions of a specific trade which have consolidated into a district council. The Executive Board shall be authorized, Section 6. The State Council may maintain a State PAC Fund for the purposes of supporting political candidates for State and local offices in New York State. The PAC Fund shall be financed by dues revenue in an amount to be determined by the President in consultation with the Executive Board.Section 3. and local building & construction trades councils shall affiliate with the Council via an annual Registration Fee in the amount of $500. All district councils, state associations, No delegate to the Convention will beSection 7. seated from any affiliated body which is delinquent in its payment of dues or assessments, and all arrearage must be paid prior to the issuance of credentials to the delegates. Any local union that affiliates with the State Council during six (6) months immediately preceding the convention shall pay dues for twelve (12) months in advance, based on a good faith estimate according to the number of hours worked during the previous twelve (12) months, prior to the issuance of credentials to the delegate. Dues to the State Council shall be paidSection 4. quarterly within 45 days of the end of each quarter for which payment is being made. Payments must be accompanied by a Quarterly Dues Report which will be provided to each local union by the State Council. The Quarterly Dues Report will summarize the number of members for which payment is being made and the total number of hours worked. The State Council may request supporting documentation at any time, i.e., pension reports, apprenticeship fund contributions, or any other monthly reports submitted to the local’s benefit office. Section 8. temporarily suspended in accordance with Article III, Section 28. Dues may be increased, decreased, or 18 19 t Section 9. Any affiliated organization whose dues are in arrears for more than two quarters may be suspended from the Council. Suspended organizations may re-affiliate at the discretion of the President upon terms and conditions within his discretion. ARTICLE VII ORDER OF BUSINESS At the opening of each business session, there shall be an adequate and proper flag salute. In any question concerning parliamentary procedure not covered by the foregoing Constitution and By-Laws, Robert’s Rules of Order shall prevail. 1 . Roll call of officers 2. Roll call of delegates 3. Admission of delegates 4. Reading of Convention call 5. Reading of minutes 6. Committees appointed by chairman 7. Visitors or fraternal delegates 8. Reports of committees 9. Unfinished business 10. New business 1 1 . Reports of trades 12. Communications and bills 13. Report of financial secretary 14. Good and welfare of the Convention 15. Nomination and election of officers 16. Adjournment Section 10. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the President from implementing a dues amnesty program to stimulate membership as recommended by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL- CIO. ARTICLE VI AMENDMENTS Section 1. regular session of the Convention by a majority vote. Amendments shall be subject to the approval of the Building & Construction Trades Department prior to becoming effective. This Constitution can be amended at a Section 2. This Constitution or any part thereof shall not be so construed or interpreted so as to conflict with the provisions or intent and purpose of the Constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL- CIO. 20 21 t * I-* * #