Case: United States v. Wood Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, Local 46

This is a lawsuit which the Attorney General sued the Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, Local 46 on behalf of the United States of America, alleging that they had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in employment discrimination against Black workers. The case was filed on May 22, 1968, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Local Union No. 46 of the Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union (Local 46) was an association of approximately 1,600 men engaged in the construction business, all but four of whom were white. The United States alleged that Local 46 engaged in a pattern and practice of employment discrimination against Black workers by adopting and implementing a policy which prevented the transfer of Black journeymen lathers into the union; affording job referral opportunities to union members and other white persons not afforded to Black lathers with similar qualifications; and engaging in acts and practices, the purpose and effect of which are to replace Black lathers on the job with white union members and other white persons. Additionally, the United States alleged that Local 46’s Joint Apprenticeship Committee engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination by imposing more stringent requirements for admission to the program for Black applicants than for White applicants. 

Thus, the United States sought an injunction which would prohibit local 36 from failing to accept transfers of Black lathers for membership; giving preference in its hiring hall to union members and other White workers referred for jobs; engaging in any practice that prevented, discourages, or hinders the employment of Black workers in the lathing trade on the same basis and under the same conditions as White workers; and failing to take reasonable steps to eliminate the effects of past discrimination. 

Before trial, on February 7th, 1970,  the United States and Local 46 reached agreement and decided to settle. They entered into a settlement agreement intended to ensure full enjoyment by Black lathers of the right to equal employment. The agreement mandated that the apprenticeship program must require the admission of at least 25 nonwhite applicants. Additionally, the agreement required Local 46 to develop rules and procedures which would ensure equal opportunities for workers in the hiring and referral process. The agreement appointed an impartial administrator whose job was to approve and implement these procedures. Finally, the report required that Local 46 submit to the court data about the race of the people registered at the hiring hall and a breakdown of hours worked by race. 

On May 21, 1971, the United States brought a contempt action against Local 46, arguing that they had failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. The United States argued that Local 46 had failed to put in place rules and procedures to prevent discrimination, and instead continued the practices that privileged the hiring of White men. The court held that Local 46 indeed had deliberately neglected to put in place measures required to comply with the obligation to avoid racial discrimination in referrals. 

The United States also alleged that Local 46 had violated the consent decree by giving more overtime hours to White workers, only referring union members for foreman positions, refusing transfers from other branches, and canceling the most recent apprenticeship class. While the court noted that these claims were not unsubstantial, it found that there was not enough evidence to hold Local 46 in contempt on any of these counts. 

As a remedy, the court declared that rules and procedures setting forth fair and neutral referral procedures must be developed and submitted to the administrator within 20 days. Then, the administrator was required to submit the rules to the court for review. The court also held that Black workers deprived of work by these practices must be granted compensatory back pay, and that a special master would be appointed to determine individual awards. 

On June 28th, 1971, Local 46 submitted these rules to the court. The court approved them in August. In September, Local 46 filed its first monitoring report. The list showed a decrease in the number of nonwhite permit holders between 1970 and 1972. The government alleged that this decrease was due to the effect of the discriminatory referral practices which limited the ability of nonwhite workers to obtain jobs through the hiring hall. Thus, the government requested the administrator to order the union to issue 100 permits to nonwhite workers immediately. The administrator then further recommended that the union issue at least one permit to a nonwhite worker for every permit granted to a White worker, and that at least 250 permits be issued each year. 

The Union rejected these recommendations. In response, on February 4, 1972, the Government moved for an order enforcing the administrator’s recommendation. Over the defendants objections, the court ordered the enforcement of the recommendations on March 13, 1972. On March 23, the defendants moved to stay this ruling pending appeal. The court denied the stay, finding that granting the stay would cause injury to the nonwhite workers continuing to face discrimination, and that the union did not have a likelihood of succeeding on appeal. 341 F.Supp. 694. 

On January 2, 1972, the appeals court upheld the district court’s approval of the administrator’s recommendations, finding that the administrator did have the authority to recommend a permit quota, and doing so did not amount to discrimination. 471 F.2d 408.