Page images
PDF
EPUB

I do have one thing, if I may.

Mr. PERKINS. Proceed.

Mr. SHERMAN. There was a witness who appeared earlier, a Mr. Rains, and he made some statements. We have some affidavits, which put a little different light on the subject matter of one of his state

ments.

Mr. PERKINS. Identify the witness, Mr. Sherman. Who was the witness?

Mr. SHERMAN. The witness was a Mr. Rains. I believe he was an attorney from Long Island, Mineola, and he made some comment about a situation that developed with a binder company.

Mr. PERKINS. You want to insert a reply to him in the record?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you very much.

(The reply referred to follows :)

STATE OF NEW YORK,

County of New York, 88:

Fred Hansen, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am and for many years have been a member of local union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, a labor union with offices at 130 East 25th Street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York. For several years past I have been a business representative of local union No. 3.

I have read pages 161 to 164, inclusive, of Harry Rains' testimony given on February 18, 1960, before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on Education and Labor. While Mr. Rains does not mention in said pages the names of any companies, etc., nevertheless, from my knowledge of the actual facts, I am in a position to state that many of Mr. Rains' statements contained on said pages of his testimony have no foundation in truth or in fact. The basis for the above statement is as follows:

As a business representative of local union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, it is part of my duties to organize and enlist as members of local union No. 3 all nonunion electricians. This organizing activity is consistent with the purposes and objects of local union No. 3 and is engaged in for the purpose not only to obtain better terms and conditions of employment for nonunion electricians but to preserve and protect the terms and conditions of employment of the electricians who are members of local union No. 3.

Toward the later part of October 1959, in the performance of my duties as business representative, I visited the premises 75 Ninth Avenue, New York City (the old National Biscuit Co. building) where renovations and alterations were taking place throughout the building. On this visit I ascertained that the F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., bookbinders, who had been engaged in business for many years and were formerly located at 345 Hudson Street, New York City, were moving its business from 345 Hudson Street to the National Biscuit Co., building at 75 Ninth Avenue, where the company was to occupy the entire first floor of the building which covers a large space area. The moving of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., involved, among other things, the moving of all of its machinery from Hudson Street to Ninth Avenue, where said machinery was to be installed requiring the necessary electrical installation and connection of the machines which were very large and intricate. The electrical work involved included the running of feeder lines and cables from the source of power to the machines and the connections thereto.

At the time I visited the job I ascertained that the electrical work for F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., was being performed by Benjamin B. Sancton, an electrical contractor, who at the time had approximately six electricians working for him. I spoke to both the electricians employed on the job and Mr. Sancton and learned that the electricians employed were not members of any union and that the electrical contractor Benjamin B. Sancton had no collective bargaining agreement with any union. I, thereupon, spoke to Mr. Margolies, the principal officer 52420-60-19

of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., and stated to him that inasmuch as his company had a record for many years of being a union company, I would greatly appreciate it if he could see his way clear to have the electrical work done by an electrical contractor who employed members of Local Union No. 3. Mr. Margolies informed me that he was under the impression that the electrical contractor Benjamin B. Sancton employed union electricians. Upon learning that Benjamin B. Sancton was not a union electrical contractor and the electricians employed by him were not union electricians, Mr. Margolies asked me whether Benjamin B. Sanction could become a union contractor. I, thereupon, informed him that local union No. 3 would gladly enter into an agreement with Benjamin B. Sancton if he were willing to enter into an agreement.

I spoke to Mr. Sancton and the same day, October 29, 1959, Mr. Sancton went with me to the headquarters of local union No. 3, where he appeared before the contract committee of local union No. 3. At this meeting a specimen form of the collective bargaining agreement entered into with all other electrical contractors was shown to Mr. Sancton and the terms of the agreement were discussed with him. Mr. Sancton stated that if he entered into an agreement with local union No. 3 it was his desire to continue to employ the six electricians presently employed by him. The contract committee informed Mr. Sancton that this arrangement would be satisfactory. Mr. Sancton then stated that if he entered into a collective bargaining agreement with local union No. 3 he would insist, contrary to the terms of the specimen agreement, to work on the job himself and act as superintendent of the job. The contract committee informed Mr. Sancton that the union could not enter into a collective bargaining agreement under which he, Mr. Sancton, as an employer, would himself work on the job and, consistent with all other collective bargaining agreements entered into between local union No. 3 and the electrical contractors, Benjamin B. Sancton would be required to hire a superintendent.

The contract committee did not tell Benjamin B. Sancton, as testified to by Harry Rains, that he would have to hire 12 workers, nor was this matter discussed at all, since the number of workers employed by an electrical contractor is determined by the contractor alone, dependent on his needs.

In this connection, the contract committee did state to Benjamin B. Sancton that in the event he needed additional electricians over and above the six electricians presently employed by him, the union would be in a position to furnish him with such electricians. Mr. Sancton stated that he would consider the contract and would contact the union the following day, which he never did.

Not hearing from Benjamin B. Sancton, I spoke to Mr. Margolies several days later and informed him of the facts stated above relating to the meeting held with Benjamin B. Sancton. On this occasion I told Mr. Margolies that I had a book which contained the names of 400 electrical contractors who had agreements with local union No. 3 and employed the members of local union No. 3, and offered to give the book to him so that he could select as he saw fit any one of the contractors contained therein to do the electrical work. Mr. Margolies stated that it was not necessary for him to look at the book because he intended to select the Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp., 74 Bleecker Street, New York City, an electrical contractor with whom local union No. 3 had a collective bargaining agreement to do the work. He further informed me that he had selected the Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. because he was acquainted with said company by virtue of the fact that the said company had previously on several occasions performed electrical work for the F. M. Charlton Co., Inc.

I understand that Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. performed work on the job for about a month employing a small number of electricians (the number of electricians employed being dependent on what machines arrive at the premises for electrical installation) and that F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., subsequently took the work away from Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. and awarded the electrical work to Lorson Electric Co., Inc., 420 Lexington Avenue, New York City.

I further understand that F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., awarded the work to Lorson Electric Co., Inc., because said company was and is performing approximately 90 percent of the electrical work throughout the building both for the owner and the tenants of the building.

I understand that a major part of the electrical work which had previously been performed by Benjamin B. Sancton had to be ripped out due to the fact that such electrical work was improperly done, was faulty, and not performed

in conformity with the requirements of the electrical code of the city of New York, so that it would never be approved by the department of water supply, gas and electricity of the city of New York, and the National Board of Fire Underwriters.

Sworn to before me this 25th day of February 1960.

Commission expires March 30, 1961.

FRED HANSEN.

NORMAN ROTHFELD, Notary Public, State of New York.

STATE OF NEW YORK,

County of New York, 88:

Harry Krauss, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am employed and have been employed for the past 18 years by Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp., 74 Bleecker Street, New York City, as a supervisor of the electrical work performed by the company. Over the past 10 years, F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., has on various occasions called upon Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. to perform electrical work for it while it was located at 345 Hudson Street, New York City.

In the early part of November 1959, Morris Margolies, of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., contacted Mac Fisher, the proprietor of the Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp., and requested that the Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. do the electrical installation work necessary at the new premises of F. M. Charlton Co. Inc., 75 Ninth Avenue, New York City. The work involved electrical installation to every type of bookbinding machine which the company was moving from its former premises to 75 Ninth Avenue. At the time Morris Margolies requested Mr. Fisher's company to perform the electrical work he stated to Mr. Fisher that he had full confidence in Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp.'s ability to perform the work and its honesty in the charges. Mr. Margolies did not ask for any fixed price but let the contract to Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. on a time-andmaterial basis with charges being submitted by Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. to F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., each week at which time the bills would be paid. After Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. performed the work for 2 weeks, during which time it, likewise, furnished the material, F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., was behind in its payments to the extent of approximately $1,500.

After Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. had performed the electrical work for a period of 5 weeks and furnished labor and material, F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., was behind in its payments to the extent of $6,000 or $7,000. At that stage Mac Fisher, the proprietor of Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. informed Morris Margolies of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., that inasmuch as Morris Margolies had failed to fulfill his promise and make the payments weekly as required, he was unwilling to continue with the job.

From my personal observation, I know that the electrical work which had been performed previously by Benjamin B. Sancton was performed in a faulty and unsatisfactory manner which could not be approved by either the department of water supply, gas, and electricity of the city of New York, and the National Board of Fire Underwriters, and most of said work was and had to be ripped out.

During the entire 5 weeks or 6, Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp, had between six and nine electricians working on the job.

The total of billings of Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. to F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., amounted to $18,359.58, which included the cost of materials furnished by Pierce Electrical Engineering Corp. for the job.

[blocks in formation]

Walter Olsen, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am and have been employed by Lorson Electric Co., Inc., 420 Lexington

Avenue, New York City, as its superintendent for the past 12 years.

Herbert Baum, the vice president of the company was formerly connected with the Krug Electric Co., an electrical contractor, in an official capacity.

I am informed by Herbert Baum that during his association with the Krug Electric Co., he became acquainted with Morris Margolies, of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., due to the fact that on various occasions Krug Electric Co. performed electrical work for F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., at its old premises at 345 Hudson Street, New York City.

Shortly after the National Biscuit Co. sold the building located at 75 Ninth Avenue, New York City, to a Mr. Glickman, Mr. Glickman requested the Lorson Electric Co., Inc., to prepare prints of all the electric risers and electric power facilities in the building. After receiving these prints, Mr. Glickman requested Lorson Electric Co., Inc., to perform the electrical work for the building itself. Likewise, the tenants who rented space in the building from time to time called upon Lorson Electric Co., Inc., to perform the electrical work which was required by such tenants.

From my own knowledge, I would estimate that the Lorson Electric Co., Inc., since September 1959, to date, has performed and is performing approximately 90 percent of the electrical installation work involved in the building for the owner and for the tenants.

In November 1959, Morris Margolies, of F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., who was acquainted with Herbert Baum, requested Mr. Baum to submit to him a budget figure on the cost of the electrical installation work involved, which budget figure was to be based upon prints which F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., had prepared. The budget figure was to include the furnishing of materials and labor. Mr. Baum submitted a budget figure to Mr. Margolies in the amount of $53,700. Since that time, F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., has made changes and additions, as is customary in all such cases.

Lorson Electric Co., Inc., started to do the electrical work about the first week in December 1959, and has continued to perform such work down to the present date. The electrical work involved is a very large job and it is my estimate that the job will not be completed for another 2 or 3 months due, mainly, to changes in the electrical work requested by F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., in addition to new additional services required by F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., which it has added. By way of illustration, recently F. M. Charlton Co., Inc., requested a new lighting system to be installed which was not included in its old print.

I have read the testimony of Harry Rains wherein he states: "The job was estimated at $12,000-some-odd by the little fellow with good wages, equal to that of the union." This statement is not only untrue but is most ridiculous. By way of illustration, the cost of the equipment alone involving a new 5,000-ampere service and necessary distribution panels which will be installed on the job will cost more than $12,000 itself.

From my own knowledge, I know that the electrical work which was originally performed on the job by Benjamin B. Sancton was performed in a faulty and unworkmanlike manner which could not be approved by the department of water supply, gas, and electricity of the city of New York and the National Board of Fire Underwriters as is required by law, and that a great part of that work will have to be ripped out.

Sworn to before me this 25th day of February 1960.

Commission expires March 30, 1961.

WALTER OLSEN.

NORMAN ROTHFELD. Notary Public, State of New York.

Mr. BRACKEN. I do not believe I gave the citation on that case. The Roland Electric Company. v. City Council of Baltimore, and the citation is 210 Maryland 396. In that case, happily, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Baltimore City prevailing wage ordinance.

Mr. PERKINS. Is that all?

Any further witnesses?

Any further witnesses in the room?

If not, the committee will stand in recess until Monday morning at 10 a.m., unless the Chair calls a meeting of the committee tomorrow. No one has made such a demand from me. I will say that.

With that understanding, there will be no meeting tomorrow morning, and any witnesses who wish to testify we will hear Monday. (Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, February 29, 1960.)

« PreviousContinue »