-

the settlement agreement, the local union told me I was assisting in negotiations-the membership of the local union said

We want one thing from these employers—

and they voted by a large majority to do it.

We want these employers to stipulate that they will transfer the Las Vegas funds into the Los Angeles fund and that they will make their contributions to the fund, because we are not getting the efficiency on our claims here that we could get out of the southern California group.

The men made that as a matter of a motion in Las Vegas and wrote a letter, to the best of my knowledge, to Los Angeles, to become merged with this plan.

There had been previous action by the trustees of this plan, to take in any local in the tri-State local that wanted to come in. Naturally, those men were accepted, to the best of my knowledge. At least, they were admitted.

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Hanley, I take it from all of this

Mr. HANLEY. May I continue, sir? I wasn't through.

Mr. MCCABE. You may, indeed. But, let me see if I can help expedite this. If not, you go right ahead at the pleasure of the Chair. The employees under the Reno plan had contributions held up because of a wage stabilization regulation?

Mr. HANLEY. Right, sir.

Mr. MCCABE. And their came a time when that restriction was lifted and they were eligible for these benefits under the welfare plan that was negotiated. There also came a time when the Reno local was merged, became a part of the southern California, Arizona, and Nevada plan. All of this was in your territory. I wonder if you can tell us the time when that plan became effective, when the merger actually took place, and whether you, as international representative, have a specific record of the dates on which these Reno employees became eligible under the umbrella plan.

Mr. HANLEY. No; I cannot tell you a specific date, because there is always a question as to the eligibility period. The only parts I played in that was insisting that they have their contributions paid into the welfare and that they be eligible according to the welfare rules. I had nothing to do with the ruling on their eligibility, when their contributions came over here. I had nothing to do with recording their contributions whatsoever. The only thing I could go by is what the joint board of trustees had done and what the administrator would do. Mr. MCCABE. But you have no record and no correspondence which would precisely fix the time at which this local became merged under the umbrella plan?

Mr. HANLEY. No, sir. If I did, I would be happy to give it to you. Now, may I explain further on this check, sir?

Mr. MCCABE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANLEY. As to this check, as I understand it and was told, it was brought to Las Vegas by the Reno trustees, a Mr. Woodbury and a Mr. Don Clore.

Mr. MCCABE. You also told us that there was an audit necessary. What was that audit?

Mr. HANLEY. That was an audit by Occidental Insurance Co. to see if any of the funds in the Vegas welfare had been used to pay benefits to the Reno men.

Mr. MCCABE. We have a record, Mr. Hanley, of an Occidental audit in 1954 covering that subject. Is that the one you refer to, sir?

Mr. HANLEY. That is the one I refer to. It was requested by me in 1953, sir.

Mr. MCCABE. What I wish you would tell the committee, if you can, Mr. Hanley, is why this check, which was drawn in January 1953, delivered to you in approximately June of 1953, did not find its way into the welfare fund until April of 1954, some 15 months later, when it was money set aside to pay the insurance premiums for employees in Reno Local 26?

Mr. HANLEY. The reason that this money was turned over to me is because of the fact that I handled the negotiations in Las Vegas when the funds were transferred from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. In other words

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Hanley, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I wanted to know if you can tell the committee how it came to be that a check drawn in January 1953 did not reach the purpose for which it was drawn until April of 1954, 15 months later.

Mr. HANLEY. I don't know who had the check between January and June or July.

Mr. MCCABE. Did you inquire into that situation when you came into possession of that check in June? It was then 5 months old. Mr. HANLEY. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. MCCABE. You did not question who had held up the check covering premium payments for your members for a period of 5 months? Mr. HANLEY. No, sir. I presume the employees or the trustees in Reno. I was sick in bed.

Mr. MCCABE. I just wanted to inquire whether you had occasion to question that time lapse when you came into possession of the check.

Mr. HANLEY. No, sir.

Mr. MCCABE. Can you tell us following that what was the reason for the delay in depositing that check in the Bank of America in Los Angeles?

Mr. HANLEY. The check was deposited here, according to this check, on July 6, 1953. I don't know whether I got the check on July 1, whether I got it on June 20, or June 1. I don't know, sir, what day I got the check. I know I brought the check, as I recall, immediately here and put it in this bank to be deposited to this fund as soon as an audit was complete by Occidental on the Reno and Las Vegas situation.

Mr. MCCABE. You requested the bank to hold that check until such time as an audit had been completed?

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge, I did. Mr. MCCABE. And what action did you take, if any, after such an audit?

Mr. HANLEY. After such an audit, when the auditor advised me, and I had an audit from the Occidental Insurance Co., which is now in the office, I turned it over to the fund and had a cashier's check drawn.

Mr. MCCABE. Can you explain to the committee what relationship this check had which represents a total amount in an escrow fund, what relationship this check had to the audit which you sought and which you refer to?

Mr. HANLEY. I think if you will check the records thoroughly, you will find that some of the men in the Reno local were paid benefits out of Las Vegas, and some of the men out of Reno, some of the employers, referred their contributions direct to this office here through confusion. I was not able to go there and straighten out any of the problems that came up over a period of months. I don't know, sir. The only thing I know is this, that there was some confusion as to whether or not men had been paid out of Las Vegas funds, and if they were paid out of the Las Vegas funds I wanted to see if there was maybe $2,000 due this check into the Las Vegas credit when it was transferred here. I wanted to see it properly distributed and I wanted to see an audit so that at all times there would be an accounting of the funds. That was my reasoning behind it.

Mr. MCCABE. For that reason, the check was held by the bank from July 1953, until April 1954?

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, sir. The audit didn't come through until the early part of 1954, the audit from Occidental. I think your records will reflect that.

Mr. MCCABE. When that check was finally processed in April 1954, the credit that reached the assets became a part of the assets of the sheet-metal workers' fund; did it not?

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, sir, to my knowledge. That is where it went. I know I turned it over to the fund. I guess they deposited it in the bank from there, sir. I do not control their deposits, do not have anything to do with their funds in that welfare when I once see a transaction is conducted such as this one here.

I took an interest in it because there was confusion as to whether or not the Las Vegas fund had been paying benefits to the Reno men or premiums to the Occidental here. That was my interest in it, to keep the money properly distributed and to see that the funds were audited at all times.

Mr. MCCABE. Do you know whether anybody obtained a cashier's check from the bank during the period when this check was held up? Mr. HANLEY. Well, at the conclusion of the audit, I went down with Mr. Fuller and someone else and obtained a cashier's check and signed it over to the welfare fund, sir.

Mr. MCCABE. Prior to that time, do you know whether anybody obtained a cashier's check?

Mr. HANLEY. Regarding this fund?

Mr. MCCABE. Yes.

Mr. HANLEY. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. No, sir.

Mr. MCCABE. I have nothing further on that point.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions.

Mr. Holt?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Hanley, I do not think this has been covered, and if it has somebody will let me know about it. Did you help negotiate and set up this northern California program?

Mr. HANLEY. No. May I explain that, sir?

The northern California plan was negotiated by a Mr. Lloyd Childs, a Mr. Frank Burke, and an international representative by the name of Louis J. Martin.

Mr. HOLT. That is before your time? Is that your district?

Mr. HANLEY. No, sir; it wasn't my district at that time. Mr. Martin later resigned and that entire district was assigned to me. I had just

been put on when that happened. I was actually a special organizer. Mr. HOLT. How old is that plan?

Mr. HANLEY. That plan went into effect-it was negotiated in July of 1950 and went into effect on October 1, 1950. I am not sure of the exact dates.

Mr. HOLT. Do you know who the carrier is on that?

Mr. HANLEY. Occidental.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Jones lost that?

Mr. HANLEY. I understand subsequently he has lost that to Pacific Mutual who has a lower bid, or lower retention and so forth, or something. I don't know what the ramifications are. I was there several times.

Mr. HOLT. When it was under your jurisdiction, what I want to know is did you help Mr. Jones? You seemed to work together on these things, you know, setting them up.

Mr. HANLEY. May I explain what the relationship was?
Mr. HOLT. Yes. I think it is clear, but go ahead.

Mr. HANLEY. When the plan was first negotiated in northern California, I did not assist in the negotiating of that plan. I was in charge of the southern California area, Nevada, and Arizona. Mr. Martin was in northern California.

Mr. HOLT. I understand that.

Mr. HANLEY. All right. I did, on several occasions meet with Mr. Martin, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Childs, to become familiar with the welfare and what they were negotiating. They were handling the negotiations there and they were handling the policy there.

Mr. HOLT. What was your assignment at that time?

Mr. HANLEY. My assignment was just in southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. I had nothing to do with anything in Oakland or San Francisco.

Mr. HOLT. All right.

Mr. HANLEY. After the plan was negotiated up there and we were negotiating this plan here or attempting to negotiate it, Mr. Childs came down here upon my request, and a Mr. George Lauer, who is an employer from Oakland, came down here to assist me in a meeting with the sheet-metal contractors in the chamber of commerce building to advise them the reasons for establishing the welfare plan in northern California, in other words to sell them on the proposition.

Mr. HOLT. You were going to give me your relationship with Mr. Jones.

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, sir. I will give that to you in just a minute. Mr. Lauer also spoke to them in relation to the welfare. They were asked who was the broker and who assisted in negotiating this plan. It was then brought out that a Mr. Jordan Jones was. I had never met Mr. Jones before that time. On a later date, when I came to town one day to work with Mr. Artman, who was the business manager, over a dispute or over wage negotiations, Mr. Artman had the welfare committee and the executive board of the local union in to a meeting with Mr. Jones and a man by the name of Wes Wright, and they were discussing the welfare plan, had a lot of charts and a lot of formulas and everything drawn out on a big conference table and were discussing the welfare plan.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Hanley, you met Mr. Jones at this meeting?
Mr. HANLEY. That is where I met Mr. Jones.

Mr. HOLT. That is all I want. I do not want all these details. Secondly, and I do want to proceed along here, who was the broker on this Pacific Mutual plan in northern California now under your jurisdiction?

Mr. HANLEY. That is no longer under my jurisdiction.

Mr. HOLT. It was not originally and then it was and then it was not?
Mr. HANLEY. For your information, I have been discharged.
Mr. HOLT. I missed that part. Do you know who the broker is?
Mr. HANLEY. No.

Mr. HOLT. That is all I want to know. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lucas?

Mr. LUCAS. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?
Mr. MCCABE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BERUEFFY. May Mr. Hanley have maybe 5 minutes to explain a couple of things that bother us about the testimony? We will try to make it short. The question of retired people and the question of the Bakersfield employers are the points. I don't know whether the committee feels that is clear or not.

The CHAIRMAN. I feel we have covered the field.

Is that something to do with welfare funds?

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question on retired matters?

Mr. HANLEY. There were several questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLT. The retired people are the culinary workers?

Mr. HANLEY. This was in the sheet metal workers, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dandy was questioned to it at length on it.

Mr. HOLT. On what?

Mr. HANLEY. Regarding retired sheet metal workers paying their own contributions.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is not the point.

Mr. HANLEY. Can I make a statement here on that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BERUEFFY. May we introduce this in evidence? I don't know if you have seen it before. It is the original call for bids on this plan. Mr. HANLEY. It was sent out to 45 companies and agents.

Mr. BERUEFFY. That is the one which Occidental bid $10.

Mr. MCCABE. I wonder if that is part of the material which has already been accepted by reference and brought here by Mr. Hanley. Mr. BERUEFFY. That is possible.

Mr. MCCABE. I believe all of the material has been made a part of the record by reference.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Counsel, we are anxious to move along. We have other witnesses. Will either you or Mr. Hanley or both of you together submit a statement on that question? We will receive it in context here.

Mr. BERUEFFY. I was going to ask you if we couldn't save time by filing our written statement on all of his testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your statement. We will have no objections. I thought maybe you wanted something in context to follow right here.