OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROBERT ANDREWS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

TESTIMONY OF GARY W. BORING, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, INDIANA, PA *

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, MINERAL POINT, PA *

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX A - OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

APPENDIX B - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, (1) LETTER OF APRIL 13, 1999 TO PETER GUNAS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM JOHN J. BLAKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BLAKE & UHLIG, P.A., KANSAS CITY, KS, (2) LETTER OF APRIL 8, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE TO JOHN J. BLAKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BLAKE & UHLIG, P.A., KANSAS CITY, KS AND (3) LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1999 TO C.W. JONES, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GARY W. BORING, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, INDIANA, PA *

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, MINERAL POINT, PA *

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX F - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX G – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF APRIL 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM HENRY L. SOLANO, SOLICITOR OF LABOR, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX H – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OF APRIL 15, 1999 TO PETER GUNAS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM SYLVIA GAUDETTE, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX I – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF APRIL 29, 1999 TO ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM CHARLES W. JONES, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX J – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF OCTOBER 30, 1996 TO SKIP PATTERSON, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM E. J. TITLEY, INVESTIGATOR, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PITTSBURGH, PA *

APPENDIX K – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999 TO JOHN KOTCH, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC FROM CHARIMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX L – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF FEBRUARY 8, 1999 TO JOHN KOTCH, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC FROM SENATOR RICK SANTORUM, UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX M – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 TO JOHN KOTCH, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC FROM CHAIRMAN HARRIS W. FAWELL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

APPENDIX N – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 TO CHAIRMAN HARRIS W. FAWELL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM JOHN KOTCH, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX O – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF OCTOBER 31, 1997 TO CONGRESSMAN JOHN P. MURTHA, US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC FROM JOHN KOTCH, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX P – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT IN THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ON APRIL 9, 1999, ALEXIS M. HERMAN, SECRETARY OF LABOR, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PLAINTIFF V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL-CIO, DEFENDANT *

APPENDIX Q – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MARCH 22, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA *

APPENDIX R – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF JANUARY 3, 1998 TO ERNEST A. PATTERSON, JR., PRESIDENT-NTL, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN *

APPENDIX S – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1997 TO WILFREDO HINOJOSA, ROSSFORD, OH FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN *

APPENDIX T – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, CIVIL ACTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ON JULY 15, 1982, RAYMOND J. DONOVAN, SECRETARY OF LABOR, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PLAINTIFF V. NATIONAL TRANSIENT DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, ET AL, DEFENDANTS *

APPENDIX U – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER DATED MARCH 5, 1998, TO ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM JOSEPH A. STINGER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX V – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, UNION MEETING NOV. 13^TH, MAIN BUSINESS – BY LAWS OPEN, RONNY E. VANSCOY, #1956571 *

APPENDIX W – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM WILLIAM J. ALMOND, AIP, DIRECTOR, N.T.D., INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX X – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 5, 1997 TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM GEORGE D. ROGERS, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX Y – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF NOVEMBER 26, 1997 TO JOHN V. KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM WILFREDO HINOJOSA, N.T.L. SECRETARY/TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS *

APPENDIX Z – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF OCTOBER 9, 1997 TO RONALD MONEZ, HOLLY HILL, FL FROM JOSEPH A. STINGER, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX AA– SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF JANUARY 3, 1998 TO EARNEST A. PATTERSON, JR, PRESIDENT – NTL, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN *

APPENDIX BB– SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 21, 1997 TO WILFREDO HINOJOSA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA

APPENDIX CC– SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 30, 1997 TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM GEORGE D. ROGERS, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX DD– SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 21, 1997 TO WILFREDO HINOJOSA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA *

APPENDIX EE– SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 21, 1997 TO GEORGE D. ROGERS, IVP CENTRAL SECTION, HOUSTON, TX FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA *

APPENDIX FF – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MARCH 20, 1998 TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA AND WILFREDO HINOJOSA, ST & RS, NTL, ROSSFORD, OH FROM CHARLES W. JONES, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APENDIX GG – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MARCH 29, 1998 TO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS FROM BROTHER JOHN KERECMAN, #1945887, HOMER CITY, PA *

APPENDIX HH – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF APRIL 21, 1998 TO JOHN V. KERECMAN, TRUSTEE – NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, HOMER CITY, PA FROM WIL HINOJOSA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NTL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX II – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF APRIL 9, 1998, TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM ERNEST (SKIP) PATTERSON, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX JJ – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF DECEMBER 8, 1997 TO JOHN KERECMAN, HOMER CITY, PA FROM WILLIAM J. ALMOND, AIP, DIRECTOR, N.T.D., INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX KK – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, AFL-CIO WEB PAGE *

APPENDIX LL – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND LABOR RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMES AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UNDER THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959 (P.L. 86-257) FEBRUARY 16, 1960, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JAMES P. MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR *

APPENDIX MM – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, (1) LETTER OF MARCH 29, 1999 TO ERNEST A. PATTERSON, JR, PRESIDENT – NTL, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM WILFREDO HINOJOSA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS, (2) LETTER OF MARCH 30, 1999 TO WILFREDO HINOJOSA, ROSSFORD, OH FROM ERNEST (SKIP) PATTERSON, MINERAL POINT, PA, ( 3) LETTER OF MARCH 15, 1999 TO ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, MINERAL POINT, PA FROM WILLIAM J. ALMOND, AIP, DIRECTOR, N.T.D., INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS, (4) LETTER OF APRIL 3, 1999 TO BILL ALMOND, PINSON, AL FROM ERNEST (SKIP) PATTERSON, (5) LETTER OF MARCH 20, 1998 TO JOHN KERECMAN, GEORGE ROGERS, TRUSTEE, NTL AND RONALD MONEZ, TRUSTEE, NTL FROM CHARLES W. JONES, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS, (6) LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 TO CHARLES W. JONES, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT FROM ERNEST PATTERSON INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS, (7) LETTER OF JUNE 25, 1997 TO ERNEST PATTERSON, JR FROM WILLIAM J. ALMOND, AIP/DIRECTOR-NTD, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDRERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS *

APPENDIX NN – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF JUNE 28, 1984 FROM J. BRIAN HYLAND, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (M0U) WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE *

APPENDIX OO – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, (1) LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1979 TO RAY MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC, ATTENTION R.C. DEMARCO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS FROM PHILIP B. HEYMANN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, (2) LETTER OF APRIL 3, 1979 TO PHILIP B. HEYMANN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, DC FROM RAY MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR *

APPENDIX PP – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LABOR ORGANIZATION ANNUAL REPORT FORM LM-2, WILLIAM J. ALMOND, BOILERMAKERS AFL-CIO, LG NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, KANSAS CITY, KS FOR THE PERIOD 7/1/96 THROUGH 6/30/97 *

APPENDIX QQ – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, BOILERMAKERS LOCAL 455, TO BE ENTERED INTO SKIP PATTERSON’S FILE *

APPENDIX RR – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, CHRONOLOGY AND CONCLUSIONS, MEMBER LOCAL 455 AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT ROCKY PRESSON AND JIM COPESKEY *

Table of Indexes *

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations

Committee on Education and the Workforce

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30am, in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, Ballenger, McKeon, Salmon, Fletcher, Andrews, Kildee, Payne, McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, and Holt.

Staff Present: Robert Borden, Professional Staff Member; Lauren Fuller, Professional Staff Member; Rob Green, Professional Staff Member; Peter Gunas, Professional Staff Member; Patrick Lyden, Legislative Assistant; Michael Reynard, Media Assistant; Mark Rodgers, Workforce Policy Coordinator; Deborah Samantar, Office Manager; Gail Weiss, Minority Staff Director; Brian Kennedy, Labor Counsel/Coordinator; Peter Rutledge, Senior Legislative Associate/Labor; Shannon McNulty, Staff Assistant/Labor and Marjan Ghafourpour, Staff Assistant/Labor.

Chairman Boehner. The Subcommittee will come to order.

I appreciate all of you making the effort to be here today. Under rule 12(b) of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. Any Member, though, is entitled to submit a statement for the record. Without objection, any opening statements will be included in the record.

Today's Hearing is the second in this Congress in our series on ``Union Democracy.'' The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, or as most of us like to refer to it, the Landrum-Griffin Act, is within this Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Landrum-Griffin protects the democratic rights of rank-and-file union members by making sure that they can, among other things, speak out on union matters, examine financial information about their union, nominate candidates, vote in union elections and avail themselves of fiduciary duties imposed upon union officers. In short, the Act is intended to give members the information and the ability to regulate themselves.

Today we will hold a discussion about the manner in which the Department of Labor, which is charged with enforcing Landrum-Griffin, goes about safeguarding the rights of the rank-and-file. Specifically, we are going to hear from a current and former member of the International Boilermakers Union. They have been involved in a battle for more than two decades to secure the basic right of electing officers of their local union. A right granted to them under federal law.

Let me say that if we wanted to design a case study touching upon the different rights granted by Landrum-Griffin, we would be hard pressed, in my view, to come up with one that so aptly shows these rights, as well as shortcomings of current law.

Let me set out the facts as I understand them. In the late 1970's a group of Boilermaker members from the National Transient Division, ``NTD,'' requested that the International Union provide them representation as provided by federal law to recognize the division as a local and allow it to elect officers. After numerous complaints to the Department of Labor, a federal court case, a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and a court order some seven years later in 1985 there were finally elections.

Our first witness, Mr. Gary Boring, will fill us in on the first part of the story. It was primarily Mr. Boring's efforts that led to the court cases and the first election.

However, right after the court order for the elections, the International Boilermakers established the National Transient Lodge, NTL, for members who actually belonged to NTD. There was never an election for NTD union officers, as we will hear from our second witness, Mr. Skip Patterson, the current NTL President. His Presidency lacks real authority and the International retains complete control. Mr. Patterson alleges that his position is unpaid and powerless. He doesn't know how many members he has because he does not have access to membership lists. He does not know how much money comes in. He has no access to the financial records. He has no budget, no salary. As I understand it, he has been forced to sign financial disclosure statements under threat of being removed from office for failing to perform his duties in a timely manner.

In sum, rank-and-file members remain where they started some 20 years ago. They have their local, but the local is stripped of all of its authority and autonomy. They elect officers who have no power. Contrary to the court order, appointed NTD officers retain control of the NTL.

Let me say that this Hearing is not about trying to embarrass the Department of Labor or the International Union. I believe it is this Subcommittee's responsibility and obligation to look into how the Department of Labor enforces the Landrum-Griffin Act.

I want to thank the Department for being here this morning. It is unfortunate that the International Union has declined our invitation to testify. They informed the Subcommittee that they were one of the most democratic unions in the country, and I think they could have added a lot to this Hearing this morning.

I recognize there is concern about this being an open case. However, let us look at why this is an open case. The Subcommittee discovered, last Friday, April 9 after all these years of the rank-and-file fighting for their rights, after the Subcommittee invited the International and the Department to testify that all of a sudden the Department files suit against the International in U.S. District Court in Kansas City. Now, I will let Members draw their own conclusions regarding the timing of the suit.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that it is the Department of Labor that brings suit on behalf of the rank-and-file members. Two rank-and-file members who led the battle are here this morning because they want full disclosure of this matter and want to help Congress understand how the Department goes about responding to complaints filed by union members. We should also remember that the Department of Labor initiated no movement to open this case, not even after Mr. Patterson first testified before this Subcommittee last year, until they were invited to testify today.

Now, it is a good thing that this case, apparently, will be litigated. But it is unfortunate that Congress, in my opinion, has had to shine some light on this matter before steps were taken to examine the abuses. Congress does not enforce the Landrum-Griffin Act, the Department of Labor does. That is what we want to discuss this morning.

Our first witness will be Mr. Gary Boring of Indiana, Pennsylvania. Mr. Boring became a Boilermaker in 1969 and was a member for 21 years. He first filed charges to obtain free elections of the NTD officer in 1976. Our next witness will be Mr. Ernest ``Skip'' Patterson, of Mineral Point, Pennsylvania. Mr. Patterson has worked in construction trades since 1973. He became a union member in 1990 and was elected president of the National Transient Lodge in 1996. Our final witness will be Mr. Bernard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards at the Department of Labor. We want to thank Mr. Anderson for appearing today, as well as Mr. Boring and Mr. Patterson.

Without objection, I will enter into the record the International Union's April 13, 1999 letter setting forth their reasons for declining to testify today. I will leave the record open for one month to allow them to submit written testimony for the record, if they wish to do so.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, (1) LETTER OF APRIL 13, 1999 TO PETER GUNAS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM JOHN J. BLAKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BLAKE & UHLIG, P.A., KANSAS CITY, KS, (2) LETTER OF APRIL 8, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE TO JOHN J. BLAKE, GENERAL COUNSEL, BLAKE & UHLIG, P.A., KANSAS CITY, KS AND (3) LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1999 TO C.W. JONES, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, KANSAS CITY, KS – SEE APPENDIX B

Chairman Boehner. At this time, I would like to ask my distinguished ranking Member from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, if he has an opening statement.

Mr. Andrews. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, and I do. I want to join you in welcoming our witnesses this morning. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I have had a chance to read what they have submitted. I thank them for their contribution to the Committee, this morning.

I also want to welcome Mr. Anderson, both in his capacity with the Department of Labor and to commend him on the fine work that he has done in my region. My constituents, many of them, work in the city of Philadelphia. Mr. Anderson was the Chief Executive Officer of an authority that was appointed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to rescue the city of Philadelphia from insolvency. Although my friend, Ned Rendell, gets a lot of credit for that, justifiably, it was Mr. Anderson's work that helped lay the foundation for that years ago. We appreciate your contribution there and your presence here today.

I want to speak briefly about a proposition with which we all agree. It is an effort which is going on outside of this Committee, and then there are some questions that I would like to see the Committee ask after today.

The proposition with which I think we all agree is that the provisions of the LMRDA, the right to speak, the right to vote, the right to control the decisions and resources of one's union, are the right principles in our law. They should be upheld. Sometimes they are not. It is absolutely a legitimate subject of inquiry for this Committee to find out when those rights are not upheld and to make sure that those charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law are doing so.

There is no dispute today, as far as I am concerned, over our adherence to the principle that union democracy is enshrined in our law and should be promoted and strengthened. An area that the Committee needs to understand, however, is the proper functioning and different roles of the Legislative and Executive Branch.

I am interested in hearing the testimony this morning. In part because it addresses such serious issues that affect people, but principally, it is our role to decide whether this statute is working and how to fix any deficiencies in the statute. I would just remind us that we should be focused not on the particular facts of the case in front of us, which are very troubling. We should be focused upon the proper Legislative response, if any, that this Committee should have in updating and strengthening the LMRDA law.

I also want to make particular reference, of course, to the litigation that is now pending in Kansas City. That is the proper forum, with the rules of evidence, with the rules of procedures and with due process, for the specific claims to be set forth and argued and remedied.

I also want to state, for the record, that it is important to note that the facts which led to the claim in the Kansas City litigation were referred by the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice for action well in advance of the announcement of this Hearing today. I want it clear that the Department of Labor is not a newcomer to this dispute. In fact, there was a referral of this matter to the Department of Justice well before this Committee decided to conduct today's Hearing.

The final point that I want to make is that we are asking absolutely legitimate questions whether the rights of union democracy have been upheld in this case and whether changes in the law are needed to uphold it in other cases. That is the question we should be asking and exploring on this Committee.

But there are other questions the Committee should be looking at, as Congress goes forward, that involve the rights of people to collectively bargain and organize and protect themselves. Are pension rights of workers adequately protected around the country, in an age where there are mega-mergers and Wall Street transactions taking place every day? Are whistle-blower laws strong enough, so that when employees have a complaint against their employer or their union that they are adequately protected? Are the discrimination laws of the country that permit us to be evaluated on the basis of merit and not gender or our race or our sexual orientation adequate? Should they be strengthened and improved? Are there adequate safeguards with respect to worker health and safety? Frankly this is an area not in the immediate jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, but on the full Committee.

I, in no way, want to diminish or minimize the gravity of the concerns that we are going to talk about this morning. These are legitimate questions we ought to be looking at. But I would urge us, as we go forward this morning, to keep two other points in mind. One is that there is a duly-constituted judicial proceeding that is going to analyze the facts of this particular case as they should be, in an appropriate forum. Our job is to assess the impact of what we are going to hear today on the question of whether we should change this law and how we should change this law. Second, there are other issues that go beyond the rights of people to receive democracy from their union; that go to rights of people to have a secure pension, a safe workplace; the right to be protected when you blow the whistle on your employer; the right to be free from discrimination in the workplace. I would hope that we would pursue those questions with equal vigor and enthusiasm as the Congress goes on.

I look forward to Hearing from the witnesses this morning. I would turn back to the Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

The witnesses appearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce and its Subcommittees are, at times, asked to take an oath and promise to tell the truth. Witnesses should be aware that under title XVII, section 1621, of the United States Code, lying to Congress while under oath may be prosecuted under law. In light of this, I would like to ask our witnesses to rise and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

You may be seated. Mr. Boring, you may begin.

Mr. Boring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear here today. My name is Gary W. Boring. I am here today to add to the time frame of the inquiry into the NTL elections.

Allow me to establish my point of view. I first went to the Union and asked questions about the NTD and was told not to worry about it. It was supposed to be none of my business. You have to consider that we were fighting on three fronts. We fought the International for the right to vote, against discrimination and for membership in a local in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

We were in the horrible position of no homeland, no representation and no one to turn to with our problems. We only worked when they saw fit for us to work. We weren't supposed to make waves, and, in other words, we fell from grace.

We began internal Hearings which resulted in predictable ways. We were shut down, no matter which direction we turned. During all this, we were trying to work in a hostile workplace, which became even worse. We were subjected to ridicule, discrimination, threats and intimidation. My brothers and I, as well as others, were out on a limb. We went to the different newspapers and TV shows in an attempt to publicize our plight. I participated in interviews with CNN, the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine. It just so happened that Jack Anderson was doing an investigative report on power plants at the time. I went to his staff and they did a story on our plight.

I heard of Senator Kennedy and the Committee he was on. I set up a meeting between myself and others to meet with his staff to tell our story. We spoke to them; we were rejected. However, I had also heard of Senator Orrin Hatch. I called his staff. This was the first response that gave us a forum to get the facts on the record.

He conducted six Hearings into Boilermakers on which was believed to be illegal practices. I told the Senator that we went to the LMSA, which resulted in delays. We went to the FBI which resulted in more delays. The National Labor Relations Board is the biggest joke in this Government.

I first filed inter-union charges against NTD sometime in 1976. The charges were filed because we had no representation. We had no elected officials and we had no vote. At the time the International appointed officials, and the rank-and-file had no say in who represented them.

At that time, I was working on a job near my home and heard, through the grapevine, there was an NTD meeting in Pittsburgh. After making several phone calls, I couldn't find out where the meeting was going to be held, or when. That frustrated me. We paid our dues and never saw our representatives. We had no one to turn to for advice and leadership. The appointed officials acted as though we worked for them rather than they working for us. Frankly, every question I asked I was told not to worry about it.

I began filing charges to get elections for the rank-and-file members of the NTD. It was time for the Justice Department to enforce the court order that resulted from the NTD case. The case gave us autonomy through a voice in choosing our own representatives. The NTL is a local. It has earned the right to be represented by the elected officials, not by the appointees.

I soon found out that it would be the journey of a lifetime trying to get this done. I read LMSA requirements and followed them to a ``T.'' There was a ton of paperwork generated and countless visits to the Labor Department in Pittsburgh and the Labor Department in Washington, D.C. The paperwork should be in the Labor Department files somewhere. I have been told that it is not there. I would like to request from the Committee that your staff pursue those records. If the paperwork is missing, the case should go to the Justice Department for prosecution under the RICO Statute for conspiracy. That paperwork should be in place. I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this is a case that the Justice Department should jump all over. There appears to be more charges than apples on a tree. I don't like the foot dragging that is done by these various government agencies that were meant to do the work at hand.

The Justice Department, the Labor Department and the Criminal Division of the Labor Department should be held accountable. Someone needs to remind them of why he or she is there and what he or she is there for. In my opinion, these cases should have been filed long ago and Skip would not have to be here to testify today. This Committee could be doing other work for the people it serves.

If I were to grade the Labor Department, it would fail. They have tried to discourage me at every turn. Just look at the time it took bring about the elections. I began in 1976, and finally got the elections in 1985. We did everything to get the word out, but we were unable to reach the entire membership. Our slate of candidates did not win. I remember thinking that at least the rank-and-file will have free elections from this point forward. I am proud of the part that I played in getting those democratic elections in the first place.

The International-backed candidates won the first election. I later heard that a guy from my region, where I live, won the second election. I talked to Skip Patterson and told him that he was going to have a fight ahead of him. By now, he knows that. The International will not relinquish its hold on the NTL easily. Skip now has first-hand knowledge of how the Labor Department can bog down and frustrate you. He is here today to explain to you what he has faced since he started his fight.

I don't like the Labor Department and I don't like the National Labor Relations Board. If you have a year or two, I will tell you about the Labor Board. I am here to witness closure to a battle that I began. The battle gained momentum when the newspapers, television and the United States Senate got involved. Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, conducted six Hearings into the Boilermakers and other unions. But the fight is still not done. In my opinion, the Justice Department should have jumped all over this case. They have an excellent tool with the RICO statute, which this case begs for. If they were as serious about the letter, or intent, of the law, they would consult with Skip Patterson, his Committee and others to resolve this situation. The Justice Department should be going after the files at the Labor Department that got this case to this level to begin with.

I don't have all the answers. But it seems if a man won the election, he should take his office. Skip should be afforded the same rights as a business manager. Things have to be accounted for here. There are monies and everything else that belongs to the new, freely-elected leadership and the members of the NTL.

Allow me to start with the Department of Labor by saying that if you step into their world and ask them to do their job, you have messed up their day. Not everyone there is hard to deal with, but you have to seek out an interested party. My honest opinion of them is that if you don't expect much, you won't be disappointed. I never have dealt with anything slower in my life.

Well, that is not entirely true. The National Labor Relations Board is even slower. The Criminal Division of the Labor Department should be investigated for failing to act on information that they could get if they tried. I know they tell people about investigations. They say that they can't comment on an investigation while the file is open. Well, this file is running for 20 years. They say they are still investigating. It is a put-off and should be crime.

They are either lazy or have a different agenda. I would ask the General Accounting Office to audit the cases the Labor Department is handling, what they prosecute, how they prosecute, how that status is achieved, how many major cases they have, and how many have been turned over to the Justice Department in the last five years alone. I would ask where the case with the NTL is right now

The Labor Department let Mr. Santos and his slate run the NTL before Skip was elected. Mr. Santos was paid. The Labor Department let him receive pay for his position when he won the first election. Is Skip Patterson any less of a freely-elected officer or official? I think not.

In conclusion, I would like to add that I will try to answer any questions you have for me. If I were invited into an Executive Session, I would be willing to appear. I thank you for having me here today.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GARY W. BORING, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, INDIANA, PA – SEE APPENDIX C

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Boring. Mr. Patterson, you may begin your testimony.

Mr. Patterson. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee.

Chairman Boehner. If the gentleman could suspend, maybe we could swap microphones. Something must be wrong with that one.

Mr. Patterson. Yes. I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for allowing me to come here today and testify. I think it is very crucial to get the LMRDA straightened out and make it democratic for all the union members' rights.

My name is Skip Patterson and I have worked in the construction trades since 1973. My first 17 years were non-union and very difficult. I had always desired to be a union member because of their benefits, working conditions, safety and craftsmanship. In 1990, I got the chance. That was the first of over 30 organizing campaigns that I was involved in, directly and indirectly. In many of these campaigns I passed out handbills endorsed by the AFL-CIO.

I believed in every single word that was in those handbills, every time I gave them to a guy to try to get him to become a union member. After a few years of talking with the members and seeing different things happen on the job sites and different situations, I realized that the NTL was in serious trouble. It was messed up.

We didn't elect our negotiating Committee. We don't elect our Representatives. We don't elect our Stewards. We don't ratify our contracts. Most unions have these rights, but we don't.

After having my life threatened, my body bruised from shoulder to hip from fighting for people's rights to join unions, I realized this isn't right. I wasn't about to give up on my union just because of a few huge problems.

Men joined together to form a union have created more prosperity and self respect for the workforce than anything else can. Every benefit can be lost when corruption sets in. We want it right. Attachment 2 contains quotes from Teddy Roosevelt and Nathan Newman and they express better than I can how I feel. That is why I ran for NTL President.

I am testifying before you today because I have exhausted every other avenue conceivable to correct the illegal structure of the National Transient Lodge, the theft of our working dues and the misappropriation of our funds. I won the election, now it is time to get this mess straightened out.

I requested that George Santos, the Ex-President of the National Transient Lodge, forward office equipment, paperwork and related items to the NTL to my address so that I could set up my office after winning the election. Bill Almond, the Assistant to the International President, Director of the NTD, appointed by the International President and Vice-President of the NTL, sent me a letter stating that my primary duty was to chair four meetings a year. Internationally-appointed NTD representatives would handle all the collective bargaining agreements, servicing the membership, handling the applications, negotiating contracts, jurisdiction, establishing training seminars and all the day-to-day business involving the NTL. He was not kidding. As the highest elected officer, I have been kept from all of the day-to-day business of the lodge.

I took a course, at my own expense, in labor relations and contract negotiations. I told Bill Almond that I was going to set up a negotiating Committee, believing that as the president of the NTL I would automatically be Chairman. It states in the IBB Constitution, under article 21.1.2, ``It shall be the function of the National Transient Division to assist in negotiating the NTL labor agreement.'' He told me, in no uncertain terms, that not only was he the Chairman, but he was the Committee, too.

I have petitioned the International President and the International Executive Council to enforce the Donovan decision and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. I have talked or written to AFL-CIO Secretary/Treasurer Trumka, Clyde Summers, Herman Benson, Congressman Murtha, Senator Santorum, the editors of Labor Notes, the Association for Union Democracy, and Hard Hat Magazine with the intention of bringing these undemocratic practices to light.

In 1984, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Transient Division is the local lodge. They did not become one. All they did was create powerless, unpaid officers' positions, add the word ``lodge,'' and create a mailing address. Structurally, nothing has changed.

The first time I went to the Department of Labor with the court orders, I was told everything was done legally. A sixth grader can read these court orders and see that it states, ``Representatives are to be elected.'' There is simply no evidence to show that elected officers will, in any way, change the structure or purpose of the labor organization as it is now run by appointed officers. The only difference is, these officers and representatives will be responsive to the members themselves, as opposed to only the International President.

I felt devastated and angry, but couldn't give up. With the help of Congressman Murtha, I was able to get the DOL to investigate and have recently been informed by the Solicitors' Office that this is being referred back to federal court. This doesn't need to go back to court or the Justice Department. I believe this is just another stalling tactic. All it needs is the order of enforcement from the Secretary of Labor's office, who it sent to this court to begin with.

We need a separate agency to handle members' charges and grievances against their own unions and shorter time limits for changes to be resolved in. The International can afford to wait, but the working man can't. These stalling tactics have beat many a working man down. Because they attempt to make their unions accountable, these members are made to suffer in every way you can imagine. This started 21 years ago at the Department of Labor and where are we now? Right back where we started.

There needs to be enforced, legal consequences for union officers and representatives who ignore, with contempt, court rulings, sidestep the LMRDA and misappropriate funds. When I went to Kansas City to look over the NTL finances, I saw there was no disclosure of the NTL working dues, as required by the Department of Labor on line 21(a) on filing Form LM-2. The NTL Secretary/Treasurer, with Internationally-appointed NTD Representatives told me we didn't need to put them in there because they didn't go to the NTL, they go to the NTD. We argued for over an hour. I signed the forms, under legal duress, above my name.

Shortly after arriving home, a UPS truck pulled up. I had received another set of LM-2 forms with a note that said to sign them clean or not at all. The phone rang and I was informed by a friend that if I didn't sign them, I would be brought up on charges and removed from office for failure to perform my duties in a timely fashion. So I called Howard Campbell, the Director in the Department of Disclosure. I had made him aware of the situation. He said, ``Sign them and you won't be held liable, because we understand the problem.''

The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers was created by local lodges to service the Membership. The International did not create the lodges, who then went out and found members to service the International. Very shortly after being elected, I went to the 1996 convention. It was the most blatant show of unrestrained power, intimidation and duress. It was unanimous: every delegate at the convention wanted the age and hourly requirement lowered on the retirement. To override the delegates, the International said there would have to be a study conducted to see if the $5 billion retirement fund would remain solvent if the age and hourly requirements were lowered.

Has it ever been corrected? Once again, the servants ignore the master. "One member, one vote" would help us regain some control over the International. When charges that are backed up by the constitution are filed against any of the Internationals, the International President uses his ultimate power of interpretation to dismiss these charges. Every union's constitution needs to be looked at by an impartial and ethical Agency, not the Department of Labor, to ensure that it complies with the LMRDA, the Bill of Rights for union members and the laws of this land. The Department of Labor works hand-in-hand with the Internationals on a daily basis. With this kind of influence, what kind of justice does the rank-and-file member receive?

I would like to see the union member made strong to balance the powers between the administrative comprised of union officers, intermediate bodies and Internationals, and the real union which is the working member. I am asking to create the same democratic balance that our government has. The union man can keep his union from corruption, but only if he is given the tools.

What are the tools? An Agency that is independent from structured lodges and Internationals to protect the lawful claims of union members. Shorter time frames for the resolution of charges filed by members against their union. The ability to obtain an in-depth, forensic audit when needed. Whenever you have large funds accumulated, you always have greedy people who want that for themselves. Union members need an easy and inexpensive way to check on their funds to make sure they are not being robbed blind. "One member, one vote," to stop the intimidation at conventions. The elimination of appointed positions in intermediate bodies. Every union's constitution and bylaws should be looked at thoroughly, when it is created and when it is changed, to ensure that it complies with the LMRDA. This could prevent many abuses from ever happening; which, in turn, would save a lot of money.

Last, but not least, we need all of you on the Committee to call, write or e-mail the Secretary of Labor and let her know that it is time to straighten out this mess. Without your help this union, that was 8,000 members strong when Gary Boring ran for office now shrunken to 3,000 members, will die soon of neglect.

I would like to thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ERNEST "SKIP" PATTERSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRANSIENT LODGE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS AND FORGERS, MINERAL POINT, PA – SEE APPENDIX D

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Patterson, thank you for coming here today and telling us your story. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the Department of Labor's administration and enforcement of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act.

I would like to thank Mr. Andrews for his compliments on the role I played as Chairman of the fiscal oversight board in Philadelphia, saving that city from bankruptcy. I can say that that was a labor of love. That city has responded quite nicely from that experience.

The Department's Office of Labor Management Standards has the primary responsibility for administering LMRDA. OLMS is part of the Employment Standards Administration, which I head, as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards.

The LMRDA is an important statute. The Department is committed to its firm and effective enforcement. The LMRDA helps assure that unions are governed democratically and that their financial integrity is protected. The law serves both union members and the public. Not only do honest, democratic unions ensure that workers and their families enjoy the benefits of the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining, they also contribute to a fair and strong society. Approximately 32,000 local, intermediate, national and international unions that represent private-sector employees are covered by the LMRDA, which includes both civil and criminal provisions.

I understand that the Committee has a particular interest in an open LMRDA enforcement matter involving one union, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. As the Subcommittee has been advised, on April 9 of this year, the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, on behalf of the Department of Labor, filed a civil action against the Boilermakers in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Government's complaint in that case is a matter of public record. A copy is attached to my statement. The complaint alleges that the Boilermakers have violated the LMRDA by imposing and maintaining an improper trusteeship of the union's National Transient Lodge. The complaint asks the Court to direct the Boilermakers to ``terminate the trusteeship and to grant full autonomy to the lodge and its officers.''

I have been advised by the Solicitor of Labor that because litigation is pending it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in detail and in a public setting the Boilermaker's case, including the facts uncovered by the Labor Department's investigation, the steps taken by the Department in the course of the investigation and the Government's legal theories. Discussing any of these subjects, outside of court in a publicforum, could seriously prejudice the Government's legal case in ways that might not be immediately obvious. Information relevant to the case could be revealed prematurely to an adversary in litigation. Evidentiary privileges could be jeopardized. The Government's ability to present its case effectively, to deal with the evidence and to refine its legal theories could be handicapped. For these reasons, and others, the court is now the proper forum for airing this matter following judicial procedures.

With the greatest respect for the authority of this Subcommittee, I would request the forbearance of the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee in this regard. The Department's goal is to reach a reasonable accommodation between the important functions of the Subcommittee and the Government's own law enforcement responsibilities. I firmly believe that we all share the public's interest in the effective enforcement of the LMRDA, both as a general matter and in connection with this specific case.

I can assure you that the Labor Department will assist the U.S. Attorneys Office in every appropriate way to see that the Boilermakers' battle is successfully prosecuted. I will pledge the Department's continued cooperation with the Subcommittee, to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the duty of the Executive Branch to faithfully execute the law. What the Government does in litigation will generally be a matter of public record. In due course, the Subcommittee and the public will be able to judge whether the Government has conscientiously enforced the LMRDA in this instance.

As members of the Subcommittee know, on March 22, 1999, Chairman Boehner asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a comprehensive, five-year review of the operations, accomplishments, efficiencies and effectiveness of the Office of Labor Management Standards in enforcing the LMRDA. On April 7, GAO staff held their initial meeting with the staff of OLMS to begin the requested review. The Department will cooperate fully with the GAO review.

Now, let me briefly discuss the general topic of this Hearing, the Department's enforcement of the LMRDA, a statute passed in 1959. Let me say first that the OLMS has 280 staff members, 50 investigators in the national office, and 160 investigators in 21 district offices throughout the United States. The responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of crimes and civil enforcement actions under the LMRDA is shared by the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor under a 1960 Memorandum of Understanding between the two departments.

Union members have the right of private action. That means, in some cases, union members can take a union to court to seek their rights under certain sections under LMRDA, and have always had the right to sue to enforce constitutions and bylaws of their unions. In other instances, members must complain to the Secretary of Labor. I would like to briefly summarize the rights and enforcement of LMRDA.

Title I of the Act creates a Bill of Rights for union members. It guarantees equal right to vote, free speech, free assembly and due process in disciplinary procedures and the imposition of dues.

Title II of the LMRDA imposes reporting requirements for unions, employers and labor relations consultants. For the first time, and with funding provided by the Congress, OLMS is developing electronic filing systems, including Internet disclosure, to improve the efficiency in LMRDA reporting and disclosure requirements.

Title III of the LMRDA governs trusteeships imposed by a union over its subordinate organizations. For example, an International union may, under certain conditions, impose a trusteeship over a local union. A trusteeship is defined in the statute as ``any receivership, trusteeship or other method of supervision or control, whereby a labor organization suspends the autonomy otherwise available to a subordinate body under its constitution or bylaws.'' A parent union may impose a trusteeship only for purposes specified in the law: for example, to correct corruption of financial malpractice, or to assure the performance of a collective bargaining agreement. Title III is enforceable by the Department of Labor on the written complaint of a union member. But the statute also creates a private right of action for union members, themselves, who may bring their own suits in federal court challenging the imposition or maintenance of a trusteeship.

Title IV of the LMRDA establishes minimum standards for the frequency and conduct of union officer elections.

LMRDA Title V protects the financial integrity of unions by establishing specific safeguards and fiduciary responsibilities on labor union officials. It makes embezzlement of union funds a federal crime. It requires union officers and staff to be bonded. It prohibits people convicted of certain crimes from being an officer or employee of a union for up to 13 years.

In summary, LMRDA creates both rights and remedies for union members, as well as giving certain enforcement authority to the Department of Labor. The Department has been and remains committed to the effective enforcement of the LMRDA. During the past five years, fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1998, OLMS has conducted 832 election investigations, supervised 206 elections, completed 128 trustee cases, completed 16 financial audits of International unions and 2,584 audits of local unions, conducted 1,604 criminal investigations, primarily involving the embezzlement of union assets and related reporting violations, and obtained 716 criminal indictments and 672 convictions.

As Congress envisioned, union members can and often do directly seek enforcement of many of the most important provision of the LMRDA. Quite properly, the Department's efforts focus on those areas where the Department is statutorily required to act, where the Department has exclusive enforcement authority and where, as a practical matter, the Department's involvement is essential to discover and redress violations.

Let me also add that in Fiscal Year 1998, OLMS initiated an excellent outreach program to inform union members of their rights under the LMRDA. For example, we prepared a summary sheet of union membership rights and officer responsibilities and sent the leadership of all National and International unions copies of that information for distribution. OLMS also answers many inquiries and provides technical assistance. These activities help support LMRDA, by keeping members informed of their rights and union officials informed of their obligations under the law.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would be pleased to answer your questions and questions of members of the Committee, subject only to the constraints by which the Department feels bound, in light of the pending litigation. Thank you very much.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX E

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Anderson, thank you for your testimony. Again, I want to thank all three of you for coming in today. Under the Committee and Subcommittee rules, each Member is entitled to five minutes of questions. We may have a second round. We will leave that to the discretion of the Members.

Mr. Anderson, I do want to respect the fact that this is an open case as of last Friday, but you have two gentlemen sitting to your right, one of which has been fighting for 20 years for his rights as a union Member. How do you feel about the story that you are Hearing from these two gentleman today, irregardless of the facts of the case and the specifics of the case?

Mr. Anderson. Well, the story that we have heard this morning is a recitation of what appears to be violations of the law as reflected in the 1984 court decision. The matters related to the current case, again, are matters that I really think, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that I should not comment on. These are matters at issue in the pending litigation. So, I would prefer not to comment of that part of the testimony that we heard related to the current case.

Chairman Boehner. Well, Mr. Anderson, again not referring to the current case or what the Justice Department is doing, I have to ask the question why this case was referred to the Justice Department on April 9, after the notice of this Committee on this Hearing was already issued and shortly before this Hearing today?

Mr. Anderson. Again, Mr. Chairman, the manner in which the Department of Labor investigated the charges in the Boilermakers concerning the status of the National Transient Lodge and the National Transient Division, in fact, is the content of the case. To get into a detailed discussion of this in public session, I respectfully suggest, could possibly jeopardize the Government's position in this case. So, matters related to the way the investigation was conducted, the conduct of the Labor Department in conducting that, the legal theories that are likely to be presented in the case, are all matters that are now pending before the District Court. I believe that it would be best to give the Members of the Committee a briefing in private session, not in a public Hearing where a comment that I might make could possibly jeopardize the Government's position.

Chairman Boehner. Let me say that I am not a lawyer. I have not been handicapped with that problem.

[Laughter.]

Clearly, Congress has an appropriate authority and responsibility to investigate open cases, whether they be criminal cases or civil cases such as this. There is substantive case law, as I understand that, to back that up. It is really important to understand this case and other cases similar to it, so that we can, in fact, look at a 40-year-old law that has had almost no changes to it since then, to try to determine if it needs to be fixed. And if so, how, as my colleague from New Jersey pointed out in his opening statement.

Let me ask you, Mr. Patterson, how you feel about this case being filed late last week in anticipation of this Hearing? What questions does this raise in your mind?

Mr. Patterson. Well, is it with all the pursuit that we made in this for such a period of time that now we have finally forced them into doing something?

Chairman Boehner. Let me ask you, Mr. Patterson, some questions again, respecting the fact that there is a legal case out there. Are other local lodge Presidents within the International union given different rights than you have?

Mr. Patterson. Oh, yes.

Chairman Boehner. Could you outline what kind of rights and responsibilities they have compared to yours? You obviously know other lodge Presidents that have been elected by their locals.

Mr. Patterson. Well, all Presidents, all locals have a fiduciary responsibility to oversee and sign LM-2s. They have to be reported to the Government.

Chairman Boehner. Do you have the same fiduciary responsibility?

Mr. Patterson. I have to sign them, but I signed them under legal duress the first time. I have notified the Department of Disclosure, since then, that I had to sign them. He said that it would be okay that they knew about it and to go ahead and sign. I wouldn't be brought up on internal charges.

Chairman Boehner. Do you know the financial condition of your local?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Chairman Boehner. When was the last election of your local?

Mr. Patterson. In 1996.

Chairman Boehner. And you were elected President?

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I was.

Chairman Boehner. How many members participated in that election?

Mr. Patterson. Around 4,300, at that time, I think.

Chairman Boehner. I see my time has expired. Let me call on a colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I again thank the witnesses for their testimony. I think they have given us some things to think about. Mr. Patterson, you were elected in 1996, is that right?

Mr. Patterson. That is correct.

Mr. Andrews. When did you first notify the Department of Labor, orally or in writing, that you felt that your rights as a duly-elected officer were being violated?

Mr. Patterson. I believe it was in September of 1996.

Mr. Andrews. Okay. Let me ask you two questions. I imply from your testimony that the Department of Labor has not been very prompt or very diligent about getting the job done. Is that a fair assumption?

Mr. Patterson. That is a fair assumption.

Mr. Andrews. If they had acted in a more prompt and diligent way and acted much sooner than this, what it is that they would have done? In other words, what did you want to see them do in September of 1996 when you made the complaint?

Mr. Patterson. To basically eliminate article XXI from the Constitution, which gives all the authority to the appointed officers.

Mr. Andrews. I assume that they would do that by filing a civil suit and trying to overturn that provision.

Mr. Patterson. I am sure that would probably be it.

Mr. Andrews. Another question I had was, Mr. Anderson, does the suit ask for that relief? Does the suit ask that article XXI be overturned? Perhaps your counsel might want to comment?

Mr. Anderson. I think that the item attached to our testimony spells out exactly our position.

Mr. Andrews. Okay. I am assuming that the complaint asks for all relief necessary to solve the problem. But I would ask you to supplement the record and give us the answer to that specific question. Actually, the Chairman shows me that the relief that is prayed for is an order which would direct the Defendant, International, terminate the trusteeship and grant full autonomy to the lodge. That is not quite the same as repealing that section of the constitution. I would ask that you supplement the record with that.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX F

Mr. Andrews. I want to ask Mr. Patterson a question about private right of action. Now, I don't know this, but it is my assumption that it is very difficult to pay for and find an attorney who would represent you in this kind of private right of action. Is that correct?

Mr. Patterson. That is very correct.

Mr. Andrews. Did you try to find an attorney who would file suit in a private right of action on your behalf?

Mr. Patterson. I have. This attorney and I have had several meetings and several conversations.

Mr. Andrews. Please, I don't want you to in any way disclose the contents of a lawyer-client discussion. I don't intend to make you do that. If you could tell me, how many lawyers did you talk with trying to find someone who would take your case?

Mr. Patterson. I talked to two that were highly recommended to me from people that have been involved in organized labor for years.

Mr. Andrews. How much money did they indicate it would cost you to pursue the matter?

Mr. Patterson. Unlimited.

Mr. Andrews. They couldn't count that high.

Mr. Patterson. They said ``unlimited.'' In fact, I have got attorneys' bills right now that I cannot pay.

Mr. Andrews. One of the concerns that I have in looking at different areas of this legislation as we go forward is that I am always concerned when citizens are put in a position to rely upon a government agency to vindicate their rights, whether it is environmental rights through the EPA, or the right not be discriminated against by the EEOC, or their rights to justice under the labor laws of the National Labor Relations Board. I would be interested in hearing any evidence that you have that could show us the difficulty of an individual pursuing a private right of action.

Mr. Boring, I am sure that you could supplement that as well. Have you spoken to, over these last 23 years, or approached lawyers about filing a private right of action on your behalf?

Mr. Boring. I filed a discrimination complaint against Local 154 in Pittsburgh. Through the course of that complaint, the Labor Board watered the suit down so that it would not go against the International or any of the companies. There was an employer association. You had an International union. They come back at us with an autonomous labor organization. The company did not want anything to do with the local and neither did the International.

Mr. Andrews. I am not sure I understand. Did you ever file suit, though, in Federal Court?

Mr. Boring. Yes, I did.

Mr. Andrews. You did.

Mr. Boring. We fought through the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Andrews. Okay. That is a little different. The question I am asking is that as I read the law, at some point in this process you would have had the right to file a lawsuit in Federal court against the people who you believe did you wrong. I fully appreciate that that is a very difficult and expensive thing to do. But did you ever speak to attorneys about doing that, during these last 23 years?

Mr. Boring. We had an attorney by the name of Tom Crawford, who was an

ex-US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He represented us before the Committee. He picked up on it after the Labor Relations Board had pretty well ended the case.

Mr. Andrews. Mr. Anderson, can you tell us, if you know, how many civil suits has the Secretary of Labor filed to enforce the Landrum-Griffin Act in the last five years?

Mr. Anderson. Let me provide that information. We provided it for the Committee.

Mr. Andrews. Apparently, it is 57 civil cases and multiples of that of criminal. The question that I would like you to look up, though, I don't expect you know it now, is the average duration between when you first receive a complaint from a citizen and when the suit is filed. I would be interested in knowing about how long it takes on a regular basis.

Mr. Anderson. Let me respond to that, Mr. Andrews, by giving you an example of the trusteeship complaints. First of all, a trusteeship allegation is investigated upon receipt of a written complaint from a member of the union. That complaint, then, is investigated by a member of the staff in the appropriate geographic area. In this case, I guess it would be in Pennsylvania.

That investigation might take, on average, a month to six weeks. In part because the people who conduct the investigations are also engaged in other work. They are investigating allegations of financial irregularities, elections and others.

Now, let me summarize it. I am an old university professor, as you know. I am an economist, not a lawyer.

Mr. Andrews. You guys keep bragging that you are not lawyers. You are giving lawyers an inferiority complex.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Anderson. From the beginning to the end from the time a complaint is received to the time a recommendation might be made for legal action might take up to a year.

Mr. Andrews. What I would like you to do is supplement the record by telling us with respect to cases that have been filed either in civil process or the criminal process, the length of time that elapsed between the first written complaint made to the Department and the filing of the action. I would be interested in seeing how long that takes.

Mr. Anderson. We will provide that.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX F

Mr. Andrews. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate that. I am sorry that I was not in here for the very beginning of this. Let me ask a few questions. I would like to go through several, so if you could give me as brief answers as possible

Mr. Patterson, I certainly appreciated your testimony. I am interested in the worker and the workers' rights. You are currently President of NTL.

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I am.

Mr. Fletcher. Given the court-ordered elections in the division, why are you not President of NTD?

Mr. Patterson. I don't know.

Mr. Fletcher. Okay. You have told us how many people you represent. Let me ask you this regarding your responsibilities. Do you participate in the negotiation of contracts?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Are you involved in grievance resolutions?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Are you involved in dues collections or expenditures?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Are you consulted on union meeting locations?

Mr. Patterson. We have argued about them on several occasions, but not usually.

Mr. Fletcher. Have you been notified on all of the meeting locations?

Mr. Patterson. Oh, yes, yes.

Mr. Fletcher. Do you have access to the membership lists of your own union?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Is it true that you have been denied the ability to contribute an article you wanted to put into the members' newsletter?

Mr. Patterson. That is correct. I wanted to add a page or a column called ``Shanty Talks,'' where guys could submit a letter to the editor or something like that.

Mr. Fletcher. So that is true. Thank you. Are there other local lodge Presidents within the International Union who have authority that is different from yours?

Mr. Patterson. Oh yes.

Mr. Fletcher. Why is that?

Mr. Patterson. Because of the restraints of the International on the local lodge.

Mr. Fletcher. So it is the restraints from International on the local and the control they have?

Mr. Patterson. Yes.

Mr. Fletcher. Are any of the lodge Presidents paid a salary?

Mr. Patterson. Yes.

Mr. Fletcher. Are you aware of how the NTL funds are handled?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Do you participate in the decisions related to the funds, or do you have any fiduciary responsibilities for the monies?

Mr. Patterson. Yes and no. I am required, by Federal law, to sign the LM-2s.

Mr. Fletcher. You have mentioned that, under somewhat of a duress.

Mr. Patterson. Under legal duress so I could not be prosecuted because I was totally unaware of anything that was in there.

Mr. Fletcher. Do you have real fiduciary responsibility for the money? Do you feel like you have that?

Mr. Patterson. No.

Mr. Fletcher. Let me ask, Mr. Anderson. Obviously the way the law is set up, much of it goes to the court for the protection of the workers' rights. It is our duty. We also have a tremendous responsibility, Constitutionally, for oversight. I think it is important that we get the information we need in order to fulfill that responsibility. We are concerned here about the workers as individuals. We are not concerned about the rights of a particular Department of Labor division or the government. We are here about the people's rights.

What I am hearing here is that you are not willing to air this or you have been directed not to air this because of protection of the Government's rights in this particular case which was filed just recently even though this problem has been going on for years. I just wondered, why would airing the truth and simply laying the facts out as they are impair your case? I don't understand that.

Mr. Anderson. Well, Mr. Fletcher, let me say that we have not said that we are not available and interested in airing this. What we said is that we would much prefer not to discuss this in a public Hearing.

Mr. Fletcher. Is the case going to be public, sir?

Mr. Anderson. I beg your pardon?

Mr. Fletcher. Is the case going to be open?

Mr. Anderson. I would assume that it would be.

Mr. Fletcher. So the case is going to be aired publicly, but you don't feel like you can give that information here, with our Constitutional responsibility to oversee it?

Mr. Anderson. My statement lays out the reason why we think it would be inappropriate to discuss in a public Hearing the matters related to this case. We are fully able and willing to meet in private session with the Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee and others to discuss this case. But to discuss this in a public Hearing could well jeopardize our responsibilities to make the best case we can to prevail in the litigation. You have me at a tremendous disadvantage. I am advised by legal beagles. I am not a lawyer. I am an itinerant economist trying to make it in this world.

I can only understand what our lawyers tell us. I would say that if you will look at the attachment to the testimony, you will see there the allegations and the position that the Justice Department is taking on the Labor Department's behalf in the case.

Mr. Fletcher. Let me interrupt you, here. I'm sorry. My time is running out and I wanted to make sure that I ask one more question. This case has been going for a number of years. I find it very disturbing that something can't be done for these local member workers. It is the Department of Labor’s responsibility to get their rights upheld.

Nevertheless, let me ask you a question, Mr. Patterson. Did you ever get a letter from the Department of Labor's Pittsburgh office telling you that by forming the lodge, NTL, the International Union had complied with a court order to hold elections in NTD.

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I did.

Mr. Fletcher. Okay. Thank you very much. That is all of my questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Tierney.

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I also want to thank the witnesses for coming here today and testifying. Mr. Anderson, let me ask you, when you were giving the definition of the LMRDA's aspects in title III on trusteeship, you talked about autonomy. If I wasn't mistaken, I thought that you said that autonomy was determined by the bylaws in the constitution of a local. Is that correct?

Mr. Anderson. That is correct.

Mr. Tierney. Is it a fact that if a local's bylaws and constitution so narrowly define autonomy as to not give it much authority, that could create a problem, unless those bylaws or the constitution were amended?

Mr. Anderson. Let me say that the answer here is not related to the case but it is related to title III.

Mr. Tierney. Right. I am only asking you for generalities here as an interpretation of the statute.

Mr. Anderson. The essence of the LMRDA, with respect to the rights of union members, is to see that the constitution and bylaws of the union are faithfully and fairly implemented, without respect or prejudice against any union member.

Mr. Tierney. And that is, I guess, what my drift was. If the constitution and bylaws don't really give much autonomy to a local organization, they may have difficulty. Rather than have you answer that because I don't want to put you in a difficult position, I’ll ask Mr. Patterson. Is that part of the problem here? Your local bylaws and constitution really don't give much autonomy?

Mr. Patterson. That is correct.

Mr. Tierney. I guess your situation is that you feel whoever preceded you, when they drafted the Bylaws and the Constitution and they passed them didn't really do a very thorough job of giving you all of the authority that you think a local should have?

Mr. Patterson. Well originally in 1986 the Bylaws that were drafted were a lot different than they are today. In 1991, the National Transient Division Director had a meeting. They opened up the Bylaws at this meeting, made all kinds of amendments, voted on it and closed it all in one meeting with a handful of members. It never went out for the full membership approval, vote or anything to do with submitting resolutions to amend it.

Mr. Tierney. Was that done in accordance with the Bylaws regarding proper notice and hearing?

Mr. Patterson. No. No it was not.

Mr. Tierney. Now, you are the President at this point in time. What is to stop you from calling a meeting to amend the Bylaws to give you more satisfactory results?

Mr. Patterson. We have.

Mr. Tierney. And the consequence was?

Mr. Patterson. There was a lot of member participation in submitting resolutions for amendment to the Bylaws. There were some excellent recommendations. But the last two meetings scheduled to debate on them and the actual voting and approval of the amendments was in Houston, Texas where a low number of members reside. It is where International President, George Rogers, has his office. He was the National Transient Division Director for several years and was in close contact with all the contractors down there. A letter went out to the employers association to encourage the foremen to read the letter on the job to the members. Basically, what we got was less than 20 NTL members that voted on the final approval of the Bylaws the way they stand today.

Mr. Tierney. I take it that the site for that vote was determined by the Division?

Mr. Patterson. Absolutely.

Mr. Tierney. In accordance with the then existing Bylaws? I think, Mr. Chairman, one thing that we might be looking at here is the definition of ``autonomy.'' Is it healthy to continue to determine it in the context of letting each local set their own rules, or should we review the statute itself and define some floor for autonomy so that these problems don't continue on. It appears that if the International has considerable sway over a local membership, they can do themselves in. Is that a fairly good assessment of what you think happened here, Mr. Patterson?

Mr. Patterson. Exactly.

Mr. Tierney. And Mr. Boring, you would agree with that?

Mr. Boring. No, not wholeheartedly. They, I believe, went to the Third Circuit Court about our membership in 154. The Third Circuit pretty well defined what ``autonomy'' is. I won't quote the case because I don't have it here in front of me. It was the State v. Local 154. It came back. We lost the case; but the word, ``autonomy,'' was clearly defined in that suit.

Mr. Tierney. My fear is that the word ``autonomy'' is defined as whatever the local sets it at in its bylaws and its constitution. That is where we keep getting into this circular type of problem.

Mr. Boring. The autonomy in a local is only as good as the people in the local. If they allow the autonomy to be taken away, then it is taken away. The International does that frequently.

Mr. Tierney. I suspect that may be part of the problem the Department has here. Their obligation under the statute is to enforce the trusteeship rules and part of them say that you just make sure that whatever the local has decided it wants for autonomy is enforced. If your local hasn't given itself very good autonomy then the Department is sort of hamstrung. Thank you.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. Ms. Maloney. McCarthy. I am sorry.

Mrs. McCarthy. That is all right. I have been called Maloney five times this week. I am going to have to change my hairstyle. We all look alike.

[Laughter.]

I want to thank all of you for coming in front of this Committee. I come from a long line of union members in my family; three generations of Boilermakers. My brother is still a Boilermaker in New York. So, I am definitely interested to make sure that all unions are representing their members. I think it is extremely important for us that we certainly protect their rights. I remember the stories they used to tell me about the battles that they had in the 1940's and 1950's so their unions would have rights.

I know, Mr. Anderson, that I can't ask you any questions on this particular case, so I will probably go to a general question. Does the Department of Labor answer all complaints or investigate all claims by union members, or do they sift them through and address a few of them, actually?

Mr. Anderson. No. The Department responds to all complaints, Ms. McCarthy. The first thing that an investigator would do would be to determine the nature of the complaint and the severity of the alleged violation. If there is any evidence that there is really something there, then a full investigation would be initiated in response to that complaint.

Mrs. McCarthy. You had mentioned earlier in your testimony that you are hoping in the near future that these complaints can be registered through the website or through electronic complaining?

Mr. Anderson. No. I referred to the filing of reports. Under the LMRDA, unions are required to annually file financial reports. In that connection let me say in response to a comment made by Mr. Patterson that the LM-2 reports, which show information on the revenues and expenditures of the union and on the salaries of union officers and other employees, are available to any member of the public and especially to union members. A simple request for that report would show what the financial status of the local union is.

In Fiscal Year 1998, we received funding from Congress to develop a system through which those reports would be filed electronically, rather than through the mail. The information in those reports, after being filed, could be revealed through the Internet. We are now moving forward, steadily. We received $500,000 in Fiscal Year 1998. We have doubled that amount this fiscal year. We are moving steadily ahead with that on a plan that should have that system up and available for use by the fall of the year 2000.

When that happens unions can file their reports. Any member of the public can dial into the website and pull down the information in those reports which are required to be filed annually by the unions.

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. One quick question. Is there anything that you think this Committee should be looking into to make things a little bit better as far as our union members working with the Department? Is there any legislation that you think we should be addressing to make the Department of Labor more efficient?

Mr. Anderson. Well, the Administration does not currently have under discussion any proposed amendments to the LMRDA. We are discussing within the Department of Labor the LM Forms, to be sure that those Forms include the kind of information that is useful for reviewing the financial status of unions. The secretary directed us to take a look at that and to determine whether or not some possible modifications in the Form might be required. Beyond that, there is no active discussion at the present of any amendments to the LMRDA.

Mrs. McCarthy. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. Sorry about the problem earlier. Mr. McKeon.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you members of the panel for being here today. I apologize for being late, but I do have some questions I would like to ask.

Mr. Anderson, I understand you don't want to discuss specifics of the case, but I have some general questions I would like you to address, if you could. What is ``de facto trusteeship''?

Mr. Anderson. De facto trusteeship. That is a matter, incidentally, that is involved in this case. The question of the trusteeship, here, is in fact the issue in this case.

Mr. McKeon. Do you have a definition of ``de facto trusteeship,'' what that means to you?

Mr. Anderson. I would prefer, Mr. McKeon, not to answer that question. That is a technical question that I think we would rather have our counsel prepare an answer to and submit that for the record.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC - SEE APPENDIX F

Mr. McKeon. I would appreciate that. Thank you. If a de facto trusteeship is illegal how does the Department of Labor go about getting rid of it?

Mr. Anderson. In the administration of that part of the LMRDA regarding trusteeships, there is an investigation. The findings of the investigation are then discussed with the union. If there appears to be a violation of the trusteeship provision, then there is an attempt made to inform the union about that and to see if the union will change its practices. If that is not done, then the Department of Labor will refer the case to the Justice Department for further legal action. That is the way it would be enforced.

Mr. McKeon. How might a union structure change after it is removed?

Mr. Anderson. Well, the union structure, I would assume, would change in response to a court order.

Mr. McKeon. What do you think about the testimony we have heard today from Mr. Boring and Mr. Patterson? It seems that they have been fighting their battle for a long time now, doesn't it?

Mr. Anderson. Well it has gone on for some time, now. Let me say that I want to separate out the content of Mr. Boring's and Mr. Patterson's statements with respect to this case from the general issue of protecting the rights of union members and union democracy. I strongly support that. The Department of Labor strongly supports that. To the extent that there is an unseemly delay in responding to complaints, that certainly is a matter that would be of great interest and concern to the Department of Labor.

We continuously look at the way the LMRDA is administered to try to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the administration of this Act. A number of changes have occurred since 1993, as part of the reinventing government effort. This is the OLMS procedures. We are subjected to some review as part of the reinventing government effort in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of this process.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Why did the Department of Labor recommend this case to the Department of Justice for litigation?

Mr. Anderson. Mr. McKeon, that is an issue that is included within the case. I would much prefer not to discuss that with you publicly. We can provide that information in private, if you so desire.

Mr. McKeon. So you could send that with the other response?

Mr. Anderson. Yes and I would call your attention to the document that is attached to my statement which lays out our theory of the case as developed by the Justice Department in its filing before the District Court in Kansas.

Mr. McKeon. It appears to me that under the 1960 Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing all civil and all criminal violations of the Landrum-Griffin Act. Why are these things set up this way?

Mr. Anderson. You have me at a tremendous disadvantage. I am not an attorney.

Mr. McKeon. Nor am I.

Mr. Anderson. I don't what I was doing in 1960, but I certainly was not in Washington worrying about LMRDA. We will provide that for the record.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHARIMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX F

Mr. McKeon. Has there ever been any talk within the Department of Labor about keeping and enforcing some of your cases yourself.

Mr. Anderson. I have never discussed that issue with anyone in the Department. No.

Mr. McKeon. If the Department of Justice decides not to take up one of the cases you refer to them, what happens in that case and what happens to the rights of the rank-and-file union members who brought you the complaint?

Mr. Anderson. I can't answer that question in any detail. I would think that the union member, then, would be advised of their private right of action. That is similar to what happens in other cases, for example, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which our agency also administers.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I found out how to get a bunch of questions asked. You just ask questions that can't be answered. But I appreciate the Secretary's attempt. If you will respond to those that you said you would for the record, I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. Mr. Payne.

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that you don't ask questions of a witness who is involved in a case and are surprised that the witness is bound by law not to answer. I mean, I don't even think you have to be a lawyer to know that.

The fact is that I think that workers should really be protected by unions. I know there are many, many unions. I have worked with many of them. As a matter of fact, this Committee for the past four years has looked at two particular groups, the carpenters and boilermakers because I guess these are two unions that they feel are not doing the right thing. We ought to look at unions that are not treating their workers right.

I don't know whether to therefore conclude that unions don't treat their workers right, or whether these are anomalies. The other thing is that I don't know about ``de facto'' and ``de jure.'' It is simple. I am not a lawyer, but ``de jure'' is ``by law.'' Up to 1954, we had segregation of schools by law. That was de jure. That was the law of the land until the Supreme Court in 1954 overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. The Board of Education and said you no longer de jure, by law, can have that. We still have more segregation of schools in 1999 than we had in 1954, but it is not de jure. The law says you can't do that, legally. But it is de facto, which means you are not breaking the law to have segregated schools, because it is de facto.

Now, I don't know about this case, particularly because I missed the testimony, but if there is something that is happening, ``de jure,'' in the union, then it is happening by practice, not by a legal term. It wouldn't be de facto if it were a part of a law.

Let me just ask this question. You say this has been going on for about 20 years. I am glad to hear that in 1993, the Department of Labor, Mr. Anderson, started to make some changes. You said with reinventing government that the OLMS started to make some ways of trying to improve itself, sort of, streamline itself. What did they do?

Mr. Anderson. Well, one of the things that was examined was the way investigations were conducted and how the resources of the organization could be deployed between the different competing demands on a decreasing staff. For example, fifty percent of the investigative resources are used to review the financial practices of unions. The next most important type of activity which is conducted is to look at elections. Both of those activities consume the great bulk of the investigative capacity of OLMS.

In addition to doing that, the organization conducts investigations of trusteeships. They also conduct audits of unions, both the local unions and international unions, to determine whether or not the unions are complying with all the provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act. So the effort under reinventing government was to take a look at the procedures and processes to be sure that they are as efficient and cost-effective as possible. That was very important, because at the time this work was being done the resources of the organization were steadily declining.

Mr. Payne. Well, since my time is going to run out, let me just say that I am glad that the Department of Labor decided to try to upgrade itself. I do know that it seems that local people should have the right.

I am familiar with two large corporations, both at over 60,000 workers. One decided that they would be centrally located in New York and all decisions were made there: financial decisions, workforce decisions and so forth. The other had about ten regional home offices and they made everybody an executive vice-president and those decisions were made locally. Now they didn't break any law. It was just a matter in which they felt they should treat their 60,000 workers non-union. This was a large financial institution. I cannot say what is the best way that the workers should be heard, but the manner and the structure of a union as long as it is in compliance with the law, I think, is important.

Finally, you mentioned 1993. There are some changes being made. I note that these gentlemen have been battling this fight for 20 years. There were several other administrations. Back in the 1980's it was the Reagan administration for a couple of terms and then the Bush administration followed that. I guess it is really not a partisan issue. It is just the fact that the Department has been a little bit slow in doing what it ought to do in the eyes of several unions.

I would just like to end my comments by complimenting the Department. When the Clinton administration came in, there was a move, evidently, to try to upgrade and straighten things up from what was left from the past administrations. Thank you. My time has expired.

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. Ballenger. First of all, gentlemen, let me apologize to you for being out, but I think everybody here has got about fifty more meetings than they could possibly ever attend. Since I was not here for your statements, let me pose a question if I may.

I understand that the Labor Department doesn't want to answer any questions on an open case. That is my understanding of what has been said, previously. But the Congress has the right to ask. It seems to me in 1981 there was a decision made that was rejected, then again in 1984, and again in 1996, that the elections are held but the member selected has no real rights. They get a financial statement that they can't prove is correct. You all tell them to sign it anyhow.

It just appears to me that you have the authority to force an election, a legitimate election, where the members have some legal rights. If I am going to be the head of the union I ought to know what the financial statement actually says and if it is legal. Yet, the Labor Department, over 15 or 20 years, has refused to go ahead with this whole situation.

I hope that I have posed that question properly. I would love to have an answer, anyhow, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson. Mr. Ballenger, let me try to answer your question as I understand it. Your question seems to be related to union elections. First of all, the LMRDA specifies certain standards for the conduct of union elections in one of its major provisions. When a union election is conducted and a union member complains about alleged irregularities in that election, if there is some basis for that complaint, then the Department must conduct an investigation. That is regularly done a good deal.

Mr. Ballenger. This all actually started in 1981?

Mr. Anderson. No, no. This started when the LMRDA was first implemented, I believe, in 1960.

Mr. Ballenger. I mean the first rejection that you had as far as a Boilermakers' election was concerned.

Mr. Anderson. Well, I really don't want to discuss the Boilermakers.

Mr. Ballenger. I know that, but we have the right ask, as Members of Congress. You just can't stonewall completely any answers about what went on.

Mr. Anderson. You have the right to ask and you have the right to an answer. We would be happy to provide that answer other than in public session.

Mr. Ballenger. I am going to request that, in writing, you present it and give us that answer.

Mr. Anderson. We would be happy to provide that answer. If I might go back to the process, because I think you raised a very important issue. What happens to a union member's complaint about irregularities in an election? That complaint is always investigated. If there is evidence that there were irregularities and there is a possible violation of the Act that would have affected the outcome of that election, then the Department of Labor requires a re-election and would conduct that election. We do a good deal of that every year. We can provide you with evidence.

Mr. Ballenger. In this particular case, have you done that?

Mr. Anderson. Oh yes. I can provide you with a list of the number of cases.

Mr. Ballenger. I was reading your list to you when I made the statement. It was in 1981, 1984 and 1996.

Mr. Anderson. I have it here somewhere. We can get you the number of elections that the Department of Labor has conducted over the past years in response to claims of violations of the Act with respect to union elections.

Mr. Ballenger. Is it your operation that you force another election, or do you have to go to court and say, ``Well, this didn't quite prove to be wrong enough to force a new election''?

Mr. Anderson. No. We conduct the second election.

Mr. Ballenger. According to my understanding in a second election the people are elected as members. The LMRDA specifies that those union officers have the right to have some knowledge of what the financial statement of that union is. As far as my understanding is, they don't have the slightest idea of whether it is right or wrong or anything like that. They have been elected to a position with no authority.

Mr. Anderson. Well, the only information that the Department of Labor would have on the financial status would be that which is contained in the LM-2 Forms, or the LM Forms. There are different forms for unions, depending upon the size of their revenues.

Mr. Ballenger. Let me just pose you this question. After the Department files a complaint and the court renders a judgment, what role does the Department of Labor have in monitoring that the judgment is implemented properly?

Mr. Anderson. Is your question what responsibility does the Department of Labor have for assuring the implementation of a court order?

Mr. Ballenger. Judgment.

Mr. Anderson. I don't believe it has any responsibility. I believe that courts are responsible for seeing that their orders are fulfilled.

Mr. Ballenger. But no responsibility as far as the Labor Department. The court comes up with something and they have no responsibility to make sure that that poor union that has been misused all along is still not being misused.

Mr. Anderson. We have no responsibility to enforce a court order, Mr. Ballenger.

Mr. Ballenger. Maybe not enforce it. Do you even look to see if it is being enforced?

Mr. Anderson. No. If in response to failure of the union to implement the court order in a matter related to the responsibilities of the union under LMRDA, we receive a complaint, then we would reinitiate the investigation to see whether the union is now in compliance with the act, with the law. We would do that. But we would do that in response to a complaint by a union member.

Mr. Ballenger. If I were the union officers and I had to sign a financial statement that is going to be sent out and I have some legal responsibility for that financial statement, but I know I have no real knowledge that financial statement is honest and true…you don't get complaints about the fact that there is no financial oversight by anybody?

Mr. Anderson. I would say that filing a knowingly erroneous report is a criminal offense under LMRDA.

Mr. Ballenger. I mean, if you are an officer, my understanding is that you mandate that somebody sign that financial statement. In other words, If I am the head of the union and I have no knowledge of what is there, whether it is right or wrong, but I do have a statement, it is probably not audited. The Labor Department calls me up and says, ``Send it in and sign it.'' Then what do I do?

Mr. Anderson You are raising a question which goes to the heart of the details in the way in which we administer the LMRDA with respect to the reporting function. I think that the best way for me to answer your question, because I don't want to provide an answer that is not absolutely correct, is to provide in writing for you an explanation of exactly how the reports that are received by the Department under the reporting and disclosure requirements of the LMRDA are handled by our staff in the OLMS.

Mr. Ballenger. Let me just make one more statement before I have to shut up. In the Boilermaker case, a complaint was made in 1996. The Department of Labor, only last week after Congressional scrutiny, referred the matter to the Department of Justice. That is what, three years past? Then last week you referred the case to the Department of Justice. It seems rather slow.

Mr. Anderson. We would like to give you a briefing, Mr. Ballenger, and provide for the record, in writing, the chronology, as well as the reasons for actions taken by the Department of Labor in the Boilermakers' case. I think that might be helpful and it would be responsive to your question.

Mr. Ballenger. Okay. Thank you.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER OF MAY 14, 1999 TO CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE FROM BERNARD E. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS, US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX F

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Anderson, I am confused. You say that you can't answer these questions in a public Hearing, yet you have just told Mr. Ballenger, and others on this Committee today, that you would be happy to meet with us and give us answers to these questions on the record, which will become part of the official record on this proceeding. This is, in fact, a public document.

Mr. Anderson. Well, I am not familiar enough with the procedures of the Congress and a Congressional Committee to know what we might discuss with you in private that would later become public. I just don't know that. I assume that if we are discussing a pending court case in the Federal District Court in which we have stipulated that our effort here and our intent is to preserve the position of the government to prevail in that case, that we would be able to discuss with a Member of Congress in response to your oversight responsibilities the details of that case. We might not discuss that with a member of the public. We would discuss that with a Member of Congress or a Member of this Committee.

But whether or not our discussions with you on that issue would then be made public is not something that I thought would be done. Maybe I am confused or mistaken about what the requirements are and the procedures that Congress follows in matters like this.

Chairman Boehner. Well, Mr. Anderson, if I recall correctly, on at least two occasions this morning, in response to Mr. McKeon and in a response to Mr. Ballenger you suggested that a written response to the question could be forthcoming.

Mr. Anderson. A written response to questions that did not have anything to do with the Boilermakers' case. A written response to questions that have to do with the administration and the enforcement, by the Department of Labor, of the LMRDA.

Chairman Boehner. I'll suggest to Mr. McKeon and Mr. Ballenger when I see them that they should not expect answers specifically regarding this case. Mr. Anderson put yourself in my shoes. This is just something that has been bothering me since this Hearing started and these discussions over the last four or five days have begun. Put yourself in my shoes. Would you think it is just a coincidence that a filing was made on April 9 in this particular case after notice of Hearing was to take place?

Mr. Anderson. Oh, I think that if you were familiar with all of the facts associated with the Department's investigation with the discussions that took place between the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, and if you look at the totality of the issues considered that it might be better to understand the timing. I certainly would not deign Mr. Boehner to put myself in your position. You are in a very elevated position, a very important position in the Congress. I am familiar with your reputation and it is quite outstanding. I say that I couldn't put myself in your place.

Let me say that I would hope that you and other Members of the Committee would be willing to look at how this case proceeds and to assess the performance of the Department of Labor at the end of the process, rather than making premature judgments at the beginning of the process.

Chairman Boehner. I am not making any premature judgment. I am asking you. Put yourself in my shoes. It looks a lot more than coincidental that this filing comes literally four or five days before the Hearing, long after notice of the Hearing was to occur.

Mr. Anderson. This is a filing by the Justice Department. The Labor Department is not responsible for the timing of this.

Chairman Boehner. On your behalf.

Mr. Anderson. Well, the Justice Department has a major responsibility here.

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Anderson, let me ask you this. We have two gentlemen sitting to your right. One has been involved for 23 years trying to get justice; trying to have his rights under the law upheld. Another gentleman has been at this at least three years, since he filed a complaint. Yet, you are able to sit there today, as a representative of the Department of Labor and hide behind the skirts of the lawyers in not being able to answer questions of two union Members who appear to have very legitimate complaints about how they have been dealt with. How do you answer these two gentlemen?

Mr. Anderson. I would have not hesitation in discussing with Mr. Patterson and Mr. Boring their concerns and interests in this case. What I have some difficulty with, as I have tried to explain as we have gone through this Hearing is the setting in which that conversation would take place. If fact I believe that both Mr. Patterson and perhaps Mr. Boring at various times in the past have been in communication with officials of the Department of Labor. I have not had the privilege and opportunity to discuss the Boilermakers' matter with either of them, but members of our staff have. Mr. Patterson has been in touch with our people in Pittsburgh and our people in the National office. Perhaps Mr. Boring has had similar conversations.

So, it isn't a matter of not communicating. Let me say this on the general question. I certainly believe that unions should operate in a democratic fashion. The Landrum-Griffin Act is there for a purpose. It serves a very important public policy objective that is union democracy. The responsibility, in my view, of the Department of Labor is to be sure that the Landrum-Griffin Act is administered in a fair, effective and conscientious way. That is something that we have to work at. Perhaps in the past there have been times when it has taken far too long to conduct investigations. The Government is not flawless, as I am sure you would agree. So, you have to continue working to improve the administration of the laws. That is the responsibility. There should be no question about the commitment of the Department of Labor to the full and fair and effective implementation of the LMRDA.

Chairman Boehner. Just one brief follow-up, if the gentleman will indulge me. I am going to change gears here and follow-up on the point that Mr. Ballenger was making. Once a court has rendered a judgment based on a filing that you have brought there is no follow-up, no enforcement, no assurance of the implementation of the court decision by the Department of Labor? This may be a question that is beyond an answer we can handle this morning. I would certainly like a written response if necessary. It could point out a very serious shortcoming in the laws as we see it today. I don't want to get into this particular case .But if in fact a court rendered a judgment some number of years ago, it was never followed-up by the Department. It was never put into place by the union. The workers have to go through the whole process again.

That was the answer that you gave to Mr. Ballenger. In your opinion the implementation of the court order is not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor.

Mr. Anderson. That is my understanding. Now we would like to communicate with you on that because I want to be sure that I gave you the right answer. I think that answer is correct but I want to be sure that we give you the correct answer and the reason for that. It might have something to do with the responsibilities of the courts versus the Executive Branch and so forth.

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to register my strong objection to the use of the term ``stonewall'' by Mr. Ballenger, who has now departed, with respect to the Department's testimony this morning. I think that is a grossly inaccurate characterization of what Mr. Anderson has done.

There are two questions in front of us. The first is whether the rights of Mr. Patterson and Mr. Boring, and the people they represent, have been violated. That question is going to be answered by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose.

The Department of Labor is in agreement with Mr. Patterson and Mr. Boring. If you read their complaint, they have basically taken the allegations that Mr. Patterson and Mr. Boring have made, reiterated those allegations and that is their position in a court of law.

The second question is should the Department talk about that and to what extent should the Department talk about that here today? I would suggest that the greatest disservice that the Department could do, and they may have done some rather grave disservice to you over the years and I am willing to accept that for the individual members of this union who may have had their rights violated, would be to disclose their litigation strategy today, publicly in this hearing. You don't go into a fight and tell the other guy where you are going to hit him. You don't go into a football game and hand the other people your play book.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Anderson, that you should be commended this morning for answering some very difficult and delicate questions. I just wanted to take a minute and talk about the negative things that could happen if Mr. Anderson were to give full answers to some of the questions that have been asked this morning.

Problem number one is that Mr. Anderson might be construed as waiving certain privileges the Department has whether they are attorney/client or other evidentiary privileges that could jeopardize this case. Because as I understand the law, once you have disclosed part of what you have told your lawyer, you may have to disclose all of what you have told your lawyer. If you have to tell the other side in a case everything that you have told your lawyer you are basically leaving yourself in a defenseless and weakened position.

Problem number two is the generation of what lawyers call ``prior inconsistent statements.'' I assure you, if Mr. Anderson said anything this morning that tended to lend credibility to the proposition that the International did not violate the rights of the members, those statements would be used again and again and again and again in any trial that takes place here over that particular issue. What the attorneys for the International would do would be to say, ``Well, we have a high-ranking official of the Department of Labor, under oath in a Congressional Hearing, and he just said this didn't happen.'' Mr. Anderson's words would be used again and again and again if they are contrary to the Department's position.

Finally, there is the whole question of strategy. Let me say this, there is a reason the International is not here this morning. They have been sued in this case and I am sure I know because I have read a letter from their attorney who has given them advice that it would be an egregious mistake to testify in this matter. Their lawyer gave them very good advice, because they shouldn't be testifying under this circumstance and in this situation.

The other side of this case, the plaintiff in this case, has not been given this opportunity. It has been advised by counsel that she should not be answering these questions under oath. Mr. Anderson, I just want to reiterate that I don't know who is right or wrong in this dispute. I don't know whether the International or these gentlemen are right. I know the Department of Labor has concluded that these gentlemen are right, or they would not have filed the suit. The intelligent prosecution of this matter, the strategic prosecution of this matter irrespective of how long it took whether it should have been done in 1996, or should be done in 1999 or should have done in 1977, I am sure of this that the Department's chances of winning this case and vindicating the rights of Mr. Boring and Mr. Patterson and the people they represent are infinitely better if the Department and the Justice Department keeps its litigation strategy to itself; does not disclose its plan to win the case and doesn't trot it all out in front of everyone here today.

So I would urge you, Mr. Anderson, to answer the legitimate questions posed by members of the Committee, but do so in a way that preserves your strategic options so that if, in fact, this case should be won, then it is. I would yield back to the Chairman.

Chairman Boehner. I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming in today. We do appreciate the time that you have taken and the testimony that you have given to the Committee. The Committee will continue its work in looking at the Landrum-Griffin Act and seeking testimony on how it might be improved as we look to what changes may or may not be necessary in the application and enforcement of the law. So, again, thank you all very much. The Hearing is adjourned.

Whereupon, at 11:40am the Subcommittee was adjourned.