International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

'PERMIT' MEN'S STATUS DEFINED BY NEW YORK COURT James J. Finn TERMINATING a dispute of five years' standing between opposing factions representing regular card men and "permit" men afiftliated with various Locals of the International Alliance, Justice Riegelmann of the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn has handed down a decision which determines the legal status of the so-called permit men. Since all but a few projectionist Locals of the Alliance practice the "permit" system, the decision is expected to exert a profound influence among Alliance units throughout the United States. The case was one of 237 "permit" men against Harry Sherman as president of Local 306, William C. Elliott, head of the parent International body, and William Green, A. F. of L. president. Local 306, alone directly concerned, assumed the brunt of the defendants' burden. Ruling that the "permit" men were not regular members of Local 306, Justice Riegelmann held that Local 306 need not return the assessments, based on actual earnings, paid to it by the "permit" men during the past five years and that admission to the union of any and all "permit" men must be based on the usual membership requirements of both the parent International body and Local 306. The Justice held, however, that no new members could be added to either the regular members' or "permit" roster of Local 306 until the membership applications of the latter group, filed at the time of their admission as "permit" men, had been either accepted or rejected. The Justice ruled further that the moneys deposited with Local 306 by the "permit" men by way of initiation fees and security deposits — amounting in the case of Local 306 to $500 for each "permit" man — should be held separate and distinctly apart from the general funds of the Local so that in the event any "permit" man wished to withdraw and cease work under the protection and jurisdiction of Local 306, his money, less offsets by way of unpaid assess Permit Men Decision Highlights Permit men are not regular members of a Union, and cannot become such until they qualify according to both Local Union and I. A. constitutions and by-laws. Deposits paid by permit men at time of application are to be considered trust funds, full amount to be available to any permit man upon demand. * Assessments levied against permit men for privilege of working under jurisdiction of Local Union are the property of the latter and need not be returned. /. A. Constitution reveals no provision for permit man status. Permit men's applications must be either accepted or rejected before any new members may be added to either permit men's or regular member s roster. ments or valid charges against his security deposit, would be available upon demand. The decision also vacated an injunction pending trial previously granted to the "permit" men and by virtue of which Local 306 was prevented from collecting the usual assessment or exercising any control over the working privileges of the "permit" men. "Permit" Man or "Apprentice"? Considerable importance was attached by the Justice to the "permit man agreement" which the plaintiffs signed at the time of their admission and which sets forth clearly the status of the applicant, although significant reference is made to the fact that the Constitution and By-Laws of the International Alliance are barren of any provision for this classification. Also, it is evident that the action of the Alliance at its Columbus Convention in abolishing the "permit man" status and substituting therefor the appelation of "apprentice" [10] and of collecting per capita tax for "permit" men weighed heavily with the Court. The contention advanced by the "permit" men that, despite the nature of the agreement which they signed upon admission. Local 306 through its officers had waived the provisions of this agreement by utilizing "permit" men for picketing and by promising action "soon" on the "permit" men's applications, was brushed aside by Justice Riegelmann with the statement that the plaintift"s, upon whom rested the burden of proof, had failed to substantiate such claim. Membership requirements of both the I. A. and Local 306 were held by the Justice to prevail, and no court of equity, he said, had the right to usurp these natural functions of a labor organization in making its own rules and administering its laws governing admission of members. Reflecting the possibility of a very different decision had the Justice abandoned strictly legalistic tenets in favor of a broadly equitable judgment of the matter. is that portion of the decision which reads: "... in view of the fact that the necessary requirements for membership have not been complied with, irresfective of any views the Court may have as to the desirability of -plaintiffs being accorded membershif in the Union and the hardships which they claim a denial thereof may entail, the provisions of the Constitution and ByLaws above referred to are controlling and the Court is without -power to declare plaintiffs members of Local 306." Membership in an unincorporated association was the subject of two abstracts of previous decisions. One of these (McKane v. Adams, 123 N. Y. 609, 192) states: "... The right to be a member is not conferred by any statute; nor is it derivable as in the case of an incorporate body. It is by reason of the action and the assent of the members of a voluntary association that one becomes associated with