United States v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States & Canada, Plumbers Local Union No. 73

314 F. Supp. 160, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 81
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedAugust 15, 1969
DocketIP 68-C-45
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 314 F. Supp. 160 (United States v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States & Canada, Plumbers Local Union No. 73) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States & Canada, Plumbers Local Union No. 73, 314 F. Supp. 160, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 81 (S.D. Ind. 1969).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

DILLIN, District Judge.

This cause having regularly come on for trial upon plaintiff’s action against defendants Plumbers Local Union No. 73 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (hereinafter Local 73) and Indianapolis Plumbers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (hereinafter JAC), and the Court having heard the evidence and considered the briefs of the parties, now finds that it has jurisdiction herein, and further finds the following facts and states the following conclusions of law in the form of this memorandum of decision.

The action, commenced February 7, 1968, charges that the defendant Local 73 “has pursued and continued to pursue a policy and practice of discriminating against Negroes, on account of their race, with respect to employment opportunities in the plumbing trade within its jurisdiction.” Plaintiff also alleges that the defendant JAC has pursued and continues to pursue “a policy and practice of discriminating against Negro applicants for admission to the apprenticeship program on account of their race.” Such alleged acts are said to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 253), Title VII, §§ 701-716; 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-15, and particularly 78 Stat. 261, Title VII, § 707; 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-6.

Local 73 is a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(d), (e). JAC is a joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(d). The Attorney General is authorized to institute this action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.

Local 73 is a labor organization consisting of an unincorporated association of members engaged in the plumbing construction industry in the State of Indiana in the following counties: Marion, Hancock, Shelby, Johnson, Morgan, Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks and Putnam (east of Road 43, except for territory on a five-mile radius from Courthouse), including Camp Atterbury. The Union’s offices are in Indianapolis, Indiana.

According to the official 1960 census, of which the Court takes judicial notice, the total population of the territory of Local 73 was approximately 965,942 (estimating a population of 8,000 for the part of Putnam County described). Of this number, slightly over 100,000, or 10.35 per cent, were Negro, virtually all concentrated in Indianapolis. From January 1, 1960, tíntil March 14, 1968, 1,725 persons worked in the jurisdiction of Local 73; none of them were Negro: Prior to July 1, 1968, no Negro had ever worked as a plumber for a Union contractor within the jurisdiction of Local 73. Membership of Local 73 on March 14, 1968, was 426, all white. At the same time, there were approximately 30 to 35 Negro plumbers in the City of Indianapolis, half of whom held licenses from the City as either master or journeymen plumbers.

Very few Negro plumbers ever applied for membership in Local 73. Those who did, both before and after July 2, 1965, the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were stalled along on one pretext or another so that none ever appeared before the examining board for admission. The reputation of Local 73 *162 in the Negro community, was that it was a “whites only” local, which effectively discouraged the Negro applicants from pursuing their applications vigorously, and also discouraged other Negro plumbers from applying in the first place.

Local 73 is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with 35 plumbing contractors, pursuant to which it has the exclusive right to refer applicants for employment as plumbers. Contractors are permitted to hire their own men if the local is unable to supply a request within 48 hours, but men so hired are then sent to the local for clearance. The local has not had enough members to meet the demand for many years, and has adopted three methods to meet the shortage: (1) it has advised the United Association of the availability of work in the Indianapolis area, and has utilized “travelers” (members of other United Association locals) who have entered its jurisdiction, (2) it has recruited non-union plumbers for referral and possible membership, and (3) it has issued work permits (“white cards”) to workers without sufficient experience to qualify as journeymen. Of several hundred men so obtained since July 2, 1965, all were white until July, 1968, some months after the filing of this action. Prior to July, 1968, Negro plumbers were not told that they could work as “white card” men, nor referred to union contractors, nor recruited for membership in the local; the reverse was true of whites.

When Local 73 finally determined to admit Negro members in mid-1968, the action was so novel that it was thought necessary to make a minute to the effect that the local was to be integrated. This action created dissension on the part of some members, which persists, at least to some extent, at this time.

From the foregoing facts it is clear, and I find, that Local 73, from July 2, 1965, until after the date of filing this action, followed a policy and practice of refusing to refer Negro plumbers, of failing to recruit Negro plumbers for referral or membership on the same basis as white plumbers, and of refusing to accept Negroes as journeymen members.

Turning our attention to the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee we find that the JAC is a joint body of five representatives and one alternate from Local 73, and five representatives and one alternate from the Mechanical Contractors’ Association of Central Indiana, Inc. (hereinafter MCA). It administers the apprenticeship program for the union and the MCA, establishes standards for the selection of candidates for the apprenticeship program, and determines which persons shall be admitted to the program. The purpose of the program is to train apprentices to become journeyman plumbers. After acceptance, apprentices are indentured to the JAC, and are enrolled in a five-year program involving on-the-job training and related classroom instruction.

Until after the filing of this action, only two Negro youths ever applied for the JAC program, and only one, Aaron Sayles, made his application after July 2, 1965. Neither was accepted. The first youth, Samuel Greene, who had a vocational certificate in plumbing from an Indianapolis high school, applied in 1961 and was told there was no vacancy. However, three months later JAC selected five white applicants to take the aptitude test, three of them having applied subsequent to Greene. All were accepted. Greene was never afforded the opportunity to take the test then or later. He was discriminated against because of his race. Sayles, however, was given the test in 1967, at which time it was administered by a nonpartisan agency. He failed it rather badly. His failure to be accepted by JAC may not be ascribed to discrimination.

Prior to July 2, 1965, it was the practice of the JAC to make marginal notations on virtually all of the applications of apprentice applicants indicating whether they were related to a union member or union contractor; or that they had no relatives in the union.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peltier v. City of Fargo
396 F. Supp. 710 (D. North Dakota, 1975)
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Chester Housing Authority
327 A.2d 335 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Pa. HR Comm. v. Chester Hous. Auth.
458 Pa. 67 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
United States v. Real Estate Development Corporation
347 F. Supp. 776 (N.D. Mississippi, 1972)
United States v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
338 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. North Carolina, 1971)
Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart
191 N.W.2d 758 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971)
United States v. Ironworkers Local 86
443 F.2d 544 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
Joyce v. McCrane
320 F. Supp. 1284 (D. New Jersey, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 F. Supp. 160, 2 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-united-assn-of-journeymen-apprentices-of-the-plumbing-insd-1969.