Full opinion text
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LINDBERG, Chief Judge. This cause having regularly come on for trial commencing on February 17, 1970, upon plaintiff’s claim against defendant Ironworkers Local 86, Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, Sheet Metal Workers Local 99, Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, Plumbers and Pipe-fitters Local 32, Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, and Electricians Local 46, and counsel for the plaintiff and each of these defendants having appeared and the Court having heard the evidence, the argument of counsel, examined the exhibits, read the transcript of proceedings, and considered the briefs submitted by counsel, now makes the following: I FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICABLE TO LOCAL 86, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL, AND REINFORCING IRON-WORKERS 1. Local Union No. 86 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers (hereinafter Local 86) is a labor organization representing workmen in the ironwork trade. Its geographical jurisdiction includes King, Kittitas, Jefferson, Kitsap, and Yakima Counties; the south half of Clallam, Snohomish, Chelan and Island Counties and all projects spanning the Columbia River from Okanogan County to Benton County, all in the State of Washington. Its principal place of business is at 2800 First Avenue, Seattle. (Admitted Facts, par. 1) 2. Local 86 is party to a collective bargaining agreement with ironwork contractors represented by the Seattle Northwest, Tacoma, and Mountain Pacific Chapters of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. The agreement is in effect through July 20, 1971. (Admitted Facts, par. 5) 3. Local 86 has an exclusive hiring hall for contractors with whom it has collective bargaining agreements. The employer must call the union in order to obtain men; he can obtain men from other sources only if the union is unable to fill his request for men within 48 hours. (PI. Ex. 39, pp. 5-6) 4. Through its hiring hall Local 86 controls at least 90 percent of the employment opportunities in the building construction classifications of the ironwork trade in the Seattle and Western Washington area within its geographical jurisdiction. (Admitted Facts, par. 7) 5. In January 1970 Local 86 had approximately 920 members. (Pl. Ex. 1; Pl. Ex. 246, p. 60; Pl. Ex. 245, p. 46) Local 86 has only one black journeyman member, Howard Lewis, who was admitted on September 12, 1969, pursuant to an order of the Washington State Board Against Discrimination. (Admitted Facts, par. 3, 4; Facts Not To Be Contested) Local 86 also has two black apprentices; John Ingram, who was admitted on October 10, 1969, and Early Johnson, who was first dispatched on October 3, 1969. (Admitted Facts, par. 3, 4) 6. In the operation of its hiring hall Local 86 maintains an out of work list for workmen seeking referral. (PI. Ex. 246, p. 11) Local 86 uses the following standards and procedures in the operation of the hiring hall: a. Workmen who register for referral to jobs in the trade are given priority in the following order (Admitted Facts, par. 10): A List: Members of Local 86 who have worked at least three years in the ironwork trade within the geographical jurisdiction of Local 86 (blue cards); B List: Members of Local 86 or any other “outside” Ironworkers Local who have worked more than nine months in the ironwork trade within the geographical jurisdiction of Local 86 (green cards). An “outside” Iron-workers Local is a local union of the ironworkers which represents workmen in the building construction classification of the ironwork trade; C List: Members of Local 86 or any other “outside” ironworkers local who have worked less than nine months m the ironwork trade within the geographical jurisdiction of Local 86 (white cards); D List: Workmen not members of Local 86 or any other “outside” iron-workers local union (pink cards). b. The hiring hall operates from 7:00 to 10:00 a. m. (Admitted Facts, par. 10) c. When employers request workmen from Local 86, hiring hall union personnel offer the jobs to those workmen present in the hiring hall, first, by calling out the name of the contractor and the job location, and, second, by calling the names of the workmen who have registered for referral, in priority order. When the name of a workman who is present in the hall is called, he may claim the job or decline it. (Admitted Facts, par. 10) There are two general exceptions to the foregoing procedures: (1) When an employer requests a particular workman by name, the hiring hall will fill the request if the man has worked for that employer for six months out of the previous twelve months. (Admitted Facts, par. 10) (2) When an employer requests a particular workman by name to act as a supervisor the hiring hall will fill the request regardless of the man’s priority standing at the time. (Admitted Facts, par. 10) In addition to the two general exceptions above, union officials will also occasionally refer men to jobs without going through the normal referral procedure. (Tr. 125) 7. There are three principal classifications of ironworkers: structural iron-workers; rodmen; and welders. Structural men erect and assemble steel beams and like components used in the construction of buildings and bridges. Rodmen (also known as rodbusters) work in the area of reinforcing concrete with steel bars and mats. Welders are responsible for welding various types of heavy gauge metals. (Tr. 24, 25, 112, 1215) Apprentices, irrespective of union membership, are dispatched on a ratio basis m accordance with the number of journeymen required on a given job. Their dispatch system is separate and independent from that of the other men on the out of work list. (Admitted Facts, par. ID 8. The applicable standards for membership set out in Local 86’s constitution are anyone “versed in the duties of some branch of the trade * * *, of good moral character and competent to demand standard wages.” (Pl. Ex. 37, p. 5) 9. An individual may become a member of Local 86 in one of three ways: (a) direct admission to membership; (b) by transferring from a sister ironworkers local; and (c) by completion of the Local’s apprenticeship program. (Tr. 1478; Pl. Ex. 37, pp. 70, 84) 10. Persons seeking membership in Local 86 must have two sponsors who are members of Local 86 and who have been in good standing in Local 86 for two years. (Admitted Facts, par. 17) 11. Howard Lewis and Jettie Murray were and are experienced black welders of journeyman capability who sought referral by and membership in Local 86. On the basis of the following facts, the Court finds that both men were denied referral and membership by Local 86 on account of their race: a. In 1962 Lewis obtained an application for membership in Local 86 but did not submit it as he was unable to find any union members who would vouch for him by signing his application. (Tr. 30-31) b. In 1966 Lewis made three attempts to join Local 86. On the first occasion he was given a June 1966 date for his examination. Lewis took time off from work and traveled approximately 175 miles to come to Seattle for the examination. However, he was not examined because he did not bring a withdrawal card to show that he no longer belonged to another union. Lewis appeared again in July of 1966. He gave the Board his City of Seattle Welder’s Certificate and other welder’s certificate papers, his withdrawal card from another union and a letter of recommendation from his superintendent. He was then asked how well he could tie knots. Lewis replied that he was not very good at tying knots. He was then informed that he could not become a member of the Union unless he knew how to tie knots. Thereafter, Lewis learned how to tie knots and in September 1966 returned a third time to Seattle from his job site some 175 miles outside of the city. At that time he was given a knot tying test. He was able to tie the first seven knots. He was then asked to tie a knot that he had never heard of before and when he told the Examining Committee that he did not know how to tie the knot, he was informed that he had failed the examination and could not become a member. The knot tying test was used as a device to exclude Lewis. Lewis decided against trying a fourth time. Shortly after his third attempt, Lewis was laid off from his ironworkers job. Upon numerous occasions after that, the Union refused to refer Lewis to employment on the ground that he was not unemployed. In March 1967, Lewis filed a complaint with the State Board Against Discrimination charging Local 86 with racial discrimination. Subsequently, Lewis was referred to jobs by Local 86 but the jobs were always of short duration. As a result of this treatment, Lewis stopped seeking referrals for employment by Local 86. On March 12, 1969, the Washington State Board Against Discrimination found that Local 86 had discriminated against Lewis on account of his race. The Board ordered Local 86 to accept Lewis as a member. Pursuant to the State Board’s court order, Local 86 took Lewis into membership in September of 1969. (Tr. 22-50; PI. Ex. 40; Facts Not To Be Contested) c. In May 1966, Jettie Murray applied at Local 86 for referral as a welder after having been advised that there was a need for welders in the ironworkers trade. He applied to the union on a regular basis for approximately three months but was always told that there was no work. On one occasion Murray contacted an ironworker employer directly about work, and upon instructions went to the union hall for dispatch back to the employer as per the collective bargaining agreement. William O. McGregor, Business Manager of Local 86, refused to dispatch him to the job. On another occasion, in June 1966, Murray presented his city welders certificate to McGregor. McGregor told Murray that he was not a welder and returned his city certificate to him. Murray never returned to the union hall. (PI. Ex. 238, pp. 20-26) When Murray was seeking referral in May 1966 there was a shortage of welders which was so serious that one of the ironwork contractors sent a letter to the International Union requesting all types of ironworkers, including welders, after it was unable to obtain enough welders through Local 86. (Admitted Facts, par. 18) On June 3, 1966, Mr. Murray filed a complaint with the Washington State Board Against Discrimination. (Pl. Ex. 40, p. 1) In May 1967 he was notified to appear to take a membership test, and appeared before Local 86’s Examining Board. He was asked to tie knots and to thread blocks. He told them that he wanted a welder’s book and knew nothing about tying knots or threading blocks. He was then told that he had failed, and that he should go home, study knots and return at a later time. He was asked no questions concerning his welding abilities. (Pl. Ex. 238, pp. 32-34) Murray did not return to attempt to pass the test a second time. In the decision of the Washington State Board Against Discrimination of March 12, 1969, that tribunal found that Local 86 had discriminated against Murray on account of his race. (Pl. Ex. 40) 12. In the past, Local 86, in the operation of its hiring hall, frequently dispatched for employment D list applicants in cases where A, B, and C list workmen were either absent from the hiring hall or declined the opportunity to accept a dispatch. (Admitted Facts, par. 12) In the summer of 1969, Local 86 at the direction of its International accepted into membership 35 of its Group D workmen (known as “permit men”). It also adopted a policy of limiting referrals to union members. (Admitted Facts, par. 13; Pl. Ex. 246, pp. 54, 60) 13. On the basis of the following facts, the Court finds that in the summer of 1969 Local 86 offered referral and membership to whites who sought employment while at the same time denying referral and membership to Cornelius Bradford and William Bracy, black applicants, on the same basis: a. Prior to 1968 Local 86 did not require written examinations for journeyman membership. (Admitted Facts, par. 19) Commencing about March 1968, Local 86 has required workmen to take and pass a written examination prepared by the International Union in order to become eligible for membership. However, in June 1969 the International Union issued journeyman membership books to 35 workmen and the International Union assisted the workmen in completing the necessary application forms. These men did not pass the Local’s test or complete its apprenticeship program. None of these men were blacks. (Admitted Facts, par. 13) Ten of these 35 men had previously taken and failed Local 86’s examination, but were nevertheless admitted as journeyman members of Local 86. (Admitted Facts, par. 15, 16) The 35 men did not have to meet any minimum experience requirements. One of them, Walter Hall, had only six weeks experience in the trade at the time he was offered membership. (PI. Ex. 89, pp. 2, 7) Another, Ray Wallace, had approximately nine weeks experience when he was offered membership. (PI. Ex. 88, pp. 2, 5) b. Later in the summer of 1969, two whites who had been cleared as permit men in the past — Rene Comeaux and Clifford Moon — were told by Local 86 that they would be referred out to work on payment of $150 and $300 respectively. Comeaux was told to fill out apprentice papers and pay $150 in the beginning part of August; in July Moon asked to work on permit and was told that if he paid $300 he would be given a book and become a member of the union. (Pl. Ex. 287, pp. 5-7, 10-11; Tr. 125-128, 114) c. In June of 1969, at or about the time the 35 permit men were taken into the union and before Comeaux and Moon were offered referral and membership, two experienced black welders who had applied for referral- — Cornelius Bradford and William Bracy — had their names on the Group D out of work list but were not offered membership or referral. (Pl. Ex.239, pp. 7, 9, 12, 22, 24, 26-27, 30; Tr. 92-95; Admitted Facts, par. 10(a)) 14. Based on the following facts the Court finds that Local 86, on a continuous basis, has denied blacks the use of its hiring hall and has given them false information concerning employment conditions : a. A condition precedent to referral to an employer through Local 86’s hiring hall is having one’s name placed on the out of work list. (Pl. Ex. 246, p. 44; Admitted Facts, par. 10) Experienced black welders contacted Local 86’s hiring hall on numerous occasions between 1965 and 1969 and were not furnished with any information concerning the operation of the hiring hall nor permitted to have their names placed on the out of work list. (Tr. 83-86; Pl. Ex. 239, pp. 23-24; Pl Ex. 242, pp. 40-41, Tr. 84; Pl Ex. 240, ' pp. 19-21; Pl Ex. 241, pp. 38-40; Pl. Ex. 238, pp. 22-23) b. Experienced black welders seeking referral through Local 86 between 1965 and 1969 were told that no work was available. (Pl Ex. 238, pp. 22-23; Pl Ex. 243, pp. 16-18; Tr. 83-86; Tr. 92-95; Pl Ex. 246, pp. 47-48; Pl Ex. 239, pp. 23-24, 26-27; Pl Ex. 242, pp. 40-41; Tr. 84; Pl Ex. 240, pp. 19-21; Pl Ex. 241, pp. 38-40) c. Employment conditions in the ironwork trade within Local 86’s jurisdiction were in fact very good from 1965 through the latter part of 1969. This fact is reflected in a steady and substantial increase in the Local’s membership during said period. (Pl Ex. 5; 10; 11; 304; 303; 1; Pl Ex. 246, p. 60) d. In the spring of 1966 Jettie Murray sought referral at Local 86 and was told by the Business Manager, Mr. Mc-Gregor, that he had not had a call for a welder for two months. (Pl. Ex. 238, pp. 20-22) In fact Local 86 at that time was unable to furnish a sufficient number of welders to its contractors, with the result that in May 1966 one contractor wrote the International Union requesting welders. (Admitted Facts, par. 18) Odell Gilbreath was told there was no work available in late 1967. (Pl. Ex. 240, pp. 19-20) Melvin Harris was told the same thing in September 1967. (Pl. Ex. 241, pp. 39-40) Local 86’s General Membership Minutes indicate that in fact work was excellent during the last quarter of 1967. (Pl. Ex. 12, 13, 14) In October 1967, for example, 1,400 men were employed in the jurisdiction, which was 550 men over Local 86’s membership at that time. (Pl. Ex. 11, 13) 15. The following facts in conjunction with findings 13 and 14, above, indicate that whites with little or no ironwork experience have been referred by Local 86, taught their skills on the job, and offered journeyman membership without having to serve an apprenticeship, while blacks have been denied these opportunities on an equal basis: a. The bulk of the work which a rodman does consists in the placing and tying of rods on reinforcing jobs. The evidence establishes that the skills ordinarily required of a rodman can be learned and developed on the job in considerably less time that the two year minimum contended for by the union. (Tr. 113, 120; Pl. Ex. 285, p. 5; Pl. Ex. 244, pp. 6-7; Pl. Ex. 286, pp. 10-11, 30-31; Pl. Ex. 287, p. 4; Tr. 1514-15) b. Whites, some with little or no previous ironwork experience are able to obtain referral by and membership in Local 86 without going through any apprenticeship program: Walter B. Hall (Pl. Ex. 89); Ray Wallace (Tr. 118-121; PI. Ex. 88); Rene Comeaux (Tr. 125); Clifford Moon (Tr. 113-14); Glenn Anderson (Pl. Ex. 244, pp. 3-4). c. Although blacks are permitted to have their names placed on the group D out of work list, no group D men have been referred out since early 1969. This has had the practical effect that no black journeyman has been referred other than Howard Lewis, who was initiated as a member pursuant to the ruling of the Washington State Board Against Discrimination. (Pl. Ex. 246, pp. 44-46; Tr. 114, 127-28; Facts Not To Be Contested) 16. On March 2, 1970, Local 86 implemented certain changes in its hiring hall procedures as a result of a decree from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Dft. Ex. B-3; Tr. 1469-71) The procedures adopted have not yet been approved by the National Labor Relations Board. (Tr. 1478-81) Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact regarding Ironworkers Local 86 the Court makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 86 is a labor organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (d) and is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(e). 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to it by virtue of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Attorney General is authorized under § 707(a) of that Act to institute suit to enjoin a pattern or practice of discrimination and request such relief as may be necessary to insure the full enjoyment of rights described in Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a). 3. Defendant Local 86 has pursued a pattern and practice of conduct which has denied blacks, on account of their race or color, equal employment opportunities in the construction industry. II FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICABLE TO THE IRONWORKERS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE 1. The J.A.C. is an unincorporated body composed of eight members, of whom four are representatives of Iron-workers Local No. 86 and four are representatives of contractors party to a collective bargaining agreement with Local No. 86. (Admitted Facts, par. 2) 2. The J.A.C. administers and controls the apprenticeship program in the ironwork industry within the jurisdiction of Local 86 and determines which persons shall be admitted to this program. (Admitted Facts, par. 3) 3. There are currently 49 apprentices indentured in the ironwork apprenticeship program, of whom two are black: John Ingram was indentured in November 1969 and Early Johnson was indentured in December 1969. Ingram was first dispatched for employment in July 1969, and Johnson in October 1969. (Admitted Facts, par. 4) These two blacks are the only ones who have participated in the program since April 1967 (Tr. 235; Pl. Ex. 34), and so far as the record reflects, they are the only ones ever to be in the program. (Tr. 235, 240-41) 4. Between June 20, 1968 and January 9, 1970, 19 blacks have applied to the program. (Admitted Facts, par. 13; Pl. Ex. 23, 32) The applications of these 19 blacks were taken after A. A. Scales, Business Representative of Local 86 and Secretary of the J.A.C., pledged the J.A. C. to a policy of non-discrimination. This pledge was in the form of a letter sent in connection with two charges of racial discrimination by the union pending before the Washington State Board Against Discrimination. (Pl. Ex. 36) of the 19 black applicants, only two were accepted. (Admitted Facts, par. 14) 5. The following facts indicate one of the procedures by which the defendant J.A.C. has discouraged or attempted to discourage blacks from undertaking and/or pursuing their applications. a. Mr. A. Sonn has been coordinator of the J.A.C. since April 1967. Prior to that time, there was no full-time apprentice coordinator. (Admitted Facts, par. 13) Applicants normally fill out their applications in Mr. Sonn’s presence, and Mr. Sonn’s duties include briefing applicants to the program. (Tr. 150, 193) Mr. Sonn testified that on occasion he has told black applicants that they would be “Jackie Robinsons.” (Tr. 1206) b. Gregory Buford, a black, visited-the Ironworkers J.A.C. office in 1968 and began filling out an application. (Pl. Ex. 21) Before or as Buford filled out his application, Mr. Sonn (Tr. 245) told Buford in effect that ironwork was a good field of work, but that he did not know if blacks could handle it. Subsequent to this remark Buford crumpled his application, threw it in the wastebasket, and left the office, feeling that he had no chance of getting into the program. (Tr. 181-84) He did not pursue his application further. (Tr. 183-84) c. William Collins, a black, applied to the apprentice program on April 22, 1969. (Pl. Ex. 20) He had been referred to Mr. Sonn by the Washington State Employment Service. (Pl. Ex. 23 (1)) Mr. Sonn (Tr. 1222) told Collins that if he passed his aptitude test he would have to go before a Board. He then stated in effect that the Board would give Collins a hard time because he was black. (Tr. 178) Collins did not pursue his application any further. (Tr. 179) 6. Applicants to the ironworkers apprentice program are interviewed by the J.A.C. and are awarded up to 100 points. According to the J.A.C.’s published standards, applicants receiving over 70 percent are then placed on a waiting list and called for work in chronological order. Thirty percent of the maximum number of points an applicant can receive is based on the interview; 10 percent is based on past experience in the trade; 10 percent is based on references; 15 percent is based on education; 10 percent is based on the physical exam; 15 percent is based on test scores; 5 percent is based on residence (Geographic Jurisdiction of J.A.C.); and 5 percent is based on Military Service. (Admitted Facts, par. 8) 7. Fifty percent of the points which can be awarded under this system — 10 percent for past experience, 10 percent for references, and 30 percent for oral interview — are based on subjective, non-reviewable determinations by the J.A.C. for which there are no set standards. (Tr. 225-227) 8. Prior to November 1968, sons, and relatives of union members were given an automatic five point preference under J.A.C. standards. (Admitted Facts, par. 8) 9. It is the practice of the apprentice coordinator to review applications after they have been filled out and to question the applicant concerning any ambiguities in the information he has supplied. (Tr. 143, 151) The Court finds that the apprenticeship coordinator did not follow the practice with respect to blacks, as evidenced by the treatment of Errin Webb’s application. (Pl. Ex. 22; Admitted Facts, par. 15; Tr. 152, 270) 10. It is the policy of the apprentice coordinator to advise persons who are disqualified because of their age of their disqualification, and not to refer them to take an aptitude test. (Tr. 143) James Cherry, a black applicant, took an aptitude test which was administered and scored personally by Mr. Sonn, the apprentice coordinator. (Pl. Exs. 23q, 25; Tr. 1228, 1230-31) The J.A.C. then sent Mr. Cherry a letter indicating that he was rejected because he had failed the test and was over-age. (PI. Ex. 23q; Tr. 249; Admitted Facts, par. 16) The Apprentice Standards state that applicants should be between the ages of 18 and 30. (Pl. Ex. 31) Mr. Cherry was 30 when he took the aptitude test. (Pl. Ex. 23q, 30f) The Court finds that had Mr. Cherry in fact been over-age at the time of his application, the apprentice coordinator would have advised him that he was not qualified for the program, and he would not have been told to take the aptitude test. (Tr. 143) Mr. Cherry’s scores on the aptitude test were 1 verbal, 24 composite. (Admitted Facts, par. 16) Under current published standards, in effect at the time Cherry took the test, his score of 24 composite was a passing score and his score of 1 verbal was not a passing score. (Pl. Ex. 27; Tr. 206) Four applicants whose scores were not passing under current published standards were accepted between August 1967 and May 1968, and two such applicants were accepted since current published standards were established. Four of these six applicants scored 1 on the verbal section of the test. (Admitted Facts, par. 11, 12) 11. Based upon the facts contained in paragraphs 12-19 below, it is reasonable to infer and the Court finds that the aptitude test requirements of the Ironworkers J.A.C. are untested, inadequate and discriminatory as to blacks. 12. Prior to the summer of 1967, applicants to the Ironworkers apprentice program were not required to take any aptitude test. (Tr. 143-44; 205) 13. Since July or August 1967, applicants have been required to take the Flanagan aptitude test. (Tr. 205) 14. Prior to May 23, 1968, no minimum qualifying scores on the aptitude test had been established by the J.A.C. Since that date, the J.A.C.’s published qualifying scores have been 3 on the verbal section of the test and 24 on a composite of six other sections of the test. (Admitted Facts, par. 10; Pl. Ex. 27; Tr. 206) 15. The minimum qualifying scores of 3-24 were established by the J.A.C. less than one month after A. A. Scales, Business Representative of Local 86 and Secretary of the J.A.C., wrote a letter to the General Counsel of the Washington State Board Against Discrimination in connection with two charges of racial discrimination by Local 86 pending before the Board. In this letter Scales pledged the union and the J.A.C. to a policy of non-discrimination and promised to take steps to recruit applicants of all races. The letter was written on April 26, 1968; the minimum qualifying scores were established on May 23, 1968. (Pl. Ex. 27, 36) 16. Since the minimum qualifying scores were established by the J.A.C., approximately 27 percent of the blacks taking the test have passed, while approximately 72 percent of the others taking the test have passed. (See table in Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief, derived from Admitted Facts, par. 13, 16, 17; Pl. Ex. 19, 23q, 24, 30, 32, 33; Tr. 240-41) 17. Since August 1967, the aptitude tests have been administered at Seattle Community College. (Admitted Facts, par. 9) However, there have been occasions on which the test has been administered and scored by the apprentice coordinator, an agent of the defendant J.A.C., both at the college and at the J.A.C. office. (Tr. 274-75; 157-58; 1231) The files at the testing office of the College do not contain records of the test results of all persons who have taken the test. (Pl Ex. 19, 23q, 24, 30f, 25) A single sheet of paper was found in the college files which contained the test results of James Cherry, a black applicant, and two other applicants whose tests were scored by Mr. Sonn; this piece of paper was the only record the college had of these tests. (Pl Ex. 24, 25; Tr. 276-86, 1228, 1230-31) The aptitude tests are furnished to the college by the J.A.C. and are customarily returned to Mr. Sonn after they have been scored. (Tr. 273, 275) 18. The Flanagan aptitude test was not selected by Seattle Community College, but is part of the requirements established on a national basis by the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers. (Tr. 204-05; Defendant’s Ex. H-6, p. 66) The coordinator of testing at Seattle Community College has not performed any statistical studies concerning the validity of the test as it related to performance as an ironworker or success in the ironworker apprentice program. (Tr. 287-88) The testing office of Seattle Community College has not in fact acted as an independent professional agency for the administration of the test, but has merely performed a service for the J.A.C. under the J.A.C.’s direction and without exercising any control over testing policies. 19. The Court finds that defendant J.A.C. adopted a policy of requiring aptitude tests of its applicants to impose higher standards and qualifications upon persons applying after July or August of 1967 than were imposed upon persons who applied before that date. The Court also finds that this change from previous practice was at least in part racially motivated. Moreover, it is clear that blacks as a group do in fact perform more poorly on this test than do whites. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact regarding the Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship Committee the Court makes the following; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Defendant J.A.C. is a joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeships within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(d). 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to it by virtue of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Attorney General is authorized under Section 707(a) of that Act to institute suit to enjoin a pattern or practice of discrimination and request such relief as may be necessary to insure the full enjoyment of rights described in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a). 3. Defendant J.A.C. has pursued a pattern and practice of conduct with respect to employment opportunities in the construction industry which has denied blacks because of their race or color the same opportunities made available to whites. III FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICABLE TO SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 99 1. Local 99 is an unincorporated association of approximately 1,400 men working in the sheet metal trade. Its principal office is at 2800 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington. The jurisdiction of Local 99 is within King County in the State of Washington. (Admitted Facts, par. 2) 2. There are two divisions in Local 99. The building trades division (sometimes referred to as the construction division) is composed of members working in building construction and sheet metal shop work. The marine division represents sheet metal workers employed in the shipyards. (Tr. 446) 3. There are approximately 900 members in the construction division. Of that number, one, Leonard O’Neale, is black. He has been a member of Local 99 since the summer of 1968. (Pl. Ex. 243, p. 12) The evidence never clarified whether Jettie Murray, another black, is also a member of Local 99. (Pl. Ex. 238, pp. 31, 54; Pl. Ex. 272; Tr. 515-16, 530) Murray and O’Neale are the only two blacks ever referred to work by Local 99. (Tr. 533) Murray worked out of Local 99 between June 1966 and July 1967. (Pl. Ex. 238, pp. 26-27, 34) O’Neale has worked continuously out of Local 99 since 1966. (Pl. Ex. 243, pp. 3-11) Both men were originally referred at a time when there was an extreme shortage of men in Local 99. (Pl. Ex. 51) 4. There are approximately 500 sheet metal workers represented by the marine division. Approximately 250 are members and 250 are applicants for membership. (Admitted Facts, par. 4) 5. Workers in the construction division are paid at the rate of $6.17 per hour. Workers in the marine division are paid $4.18 per hour. (Admitted Facts, par. 7) 6. Within the construction division there are two main classifications of workers: journeyman sheet metal men and journeyman welders. They are both compensated at the same rate of pay. (Pl. Ex. 247, p. 48) The majority of sheet metal men can also weld, and there are welders who pick up sheet metal skills by on the job experience. (Pl. Ex. 243, pp. 10-11; Pl. Ex. 247, pp. 29-31; 50-51) 7. Local 99 through the operation of a hiring hall controls a substantial portion of the building trades sheet metal work in the Seattle area. (Tr. 449) 8. Pursuant to collective bargaining agreements Local 99 is the exclusive source of building trades sheet metal worker's for contractors who are parties to the agreements. Employers request men for the union and in the event that the union is unable to supply qualified workmen to fill such requests within forty-eight hours, the employers may hire workmen directly. (Pl. Ex. 43, p. 36) 9. In order to supply workers Local 99 maintains an out of work book which union members and applicants for membership who have previously worked under the union’s collective bargaining agreement sign when seeking work. Workers who are not members or who have not been previously employed under the collective bargaining agreement are not permitted to have their names placed on the out of work list. (Tr. 1553) However, their name and phone number is taken and if work is available they will be called and sent out. (Tr. 479-80) 10. In response to an employers’ request for men the union dispatcher refers those who have been on the out of work list the longest. However, once a member or applicant for membership has his name placed on the out of work list he may solicit work from union contractors and a contractor may call the union and ask for such individual by name irrespective of his position on the out of work list. (Tr. 480, 482) Union contractors may not employ non-union men who solicit employment except in circumstances where the union is unable to supply-workers within forty-eight hours. (Tr. 483, 1555) In summary, a non-union sheet metal worker who desires to apply for membership and have his name placed on the out of work list must either serve an apprenticeship or pass a journeyman’s competency examination. 11. Welders are not required to take a competency examination as a prerequisite to work referral and membership. A valid card of certification will suffice as proof of competency. (Tr. 477) 12. Melvin Harris is a black welder skilled in basic welding, gas welding, electric arc welding, and heliarc welding. (Tr. 296-97) Between 1967 and 1969 he contacted Local 99 approximately 20 times in an effort to obtain construction referral. He was uniformly unsuccessful. (Tr. 307, 310, 313) a. Harris first sought work through the union in the spring of 1967. He was told by the union dispatcher that a city welding certification was necessary before he could be sent to work and that all the welders referred by Local 99 were city certified. At that time Harris did not possess a certification card and was not sent to work. (Tr. 303-04) Jerry Brown, a white welder, was referred out numerous times by the union between 1966 and 1968 despite the fact that he was not city certified. (Tr. 546-49) b. Harris obtained city certification and went back to Local 99 in May of 1967 seeking work. (Tr. 305) The union dispatcher told him that work was slow and that he should keep checking back. His name was not taken or put on the out of work list nor was the operation of the hiring hall explained. (Tr. 305-06) He returned numerous times between June and November of 1967 and was always told that work was slow, but to check back again. His name was not taken nor was the work referral system explained to him. (Tr. 307-08; 310-11) Minutes of the union membership meetings held during this time disclose that employment opportunities were excellent and that there were periodic shortages of men. (Pl. Exs. 56, 57, 58) Between January and August of 1968, Harris sought work several times. The union dispatcher again told him that work was slow. His name was not taken nor was the work referral system explained. (Tr. 310-13) c. In 1969 Harris inquired about work on many occasions at Local 99 beginning in February or March. The union response was the same. In July of 1969 Harris’ name and phone number were taken for the first time by the union. However, he was not referred to a job. (Tr. 313-15) 13. Odel Gilbreath is a black welder who is certified by the City of Seattle. He sought work through Local 99 in the latter part of 1968. At that time he was told by the union that no jobs were available and that he could not be referred to work because he was not a member of the union. He received no other information and was not referred to a job. (Tr. 321-22; 328-29) 14. Cornelius Bradford, a black welder, possesses a city certification and many other types of welder certifications. (Pl. Ex. 239, p. 9) He sought construction employment through Local 99 several times in the summer of 1969. Bradford was told by the union that there was no work. His name and phone number were taken and he was later offered a job in the shipyards but not in construction. (Pl. Ex. 239, p. 13-15, 21) 15. John Buckner, a black welder possessing a Navy welding certificate, sought work through the union in April of 1969. He, at that time, was employed as a welder in the shipyards and was looking for higher paying construction work. Buckner left his name and was later called by the union and asked if he had a city certificate. He replied no but that he would get one if a job was available. Buckner was told by the union that something might come up in the future but had no further contact with Local 99. (Pl. Ex. 242, p. 6, 20-25) 16. The employment conditions in the building trades division of the sheet metal industry from 1965 through the latter part of 1969 were very good. (Pl. Exs. 44, 46, 50, 56, 59) The demand for sheet metal workers was so great in the last two or three years that the sheet metal course taught at Seattle Community College was reduced in duration from two years to one in order to supply men to meet the needs of the industry. (Tr. 1606) 17. During the times of the manpower shortage Local 99 contacted other unions to obtain construction workers. During the period between 1966 ..and December 1969, 360 members of other sheet metal locals throughout the country transferred into Local 99. (Pl. Ex. 247, pp. 38-41; Admitted Facts, par. 8) 18. A sheet metal worker, who is neither a welder nor a member of Local 99 or an applicant for membership with prior experience under the collective bargaining agreement, must take a competency examination. An individual who passes may have his name placed on the out of work list and be eligible for work referral and membership. (Tr. 465-66; Pl. Ex. 247, p. 64) 19. Between 1956 and 1962, Local 99 did not regularly give a competency examination. (Tr. 1294) From 1965 to April 1968, Local 99 administered approximately 162 building trades competency examinations. Of that number 74, or 46 percent of those taking it were admitted into Local 99. (Admitted Facts, par. 5) The passing score for the examination was 80 percent. (Pl. Ex. 247, p. 91) 20. The job of administering a competency examination was given to Seattle Community College in April of 1968. (Pl. Ex. 247, pp. 88-9) The stated purpose was to preclude any appearance of unfairness. (Tr. 379-80, 540, 41) Of the 29 taking the test at the college since April 1968, only four, 14 percent of those taking it, were admitted into the union. (Admitted Facts, par. 6) 21. Since Seattle Community College was given the duty of administering the examination, officials of Local 99 have continued to administer it to certain individuals at the union hall. (Tr. 470-72, 537-38) At least one of these individuals scored below the passing mark yet was referred to work by the union. (Tr. 369-71) Another examinee was never advised of his score, though he was told he passed. (Tr. 355-56) Local 99 was unable to locate the actual examinations of the persons who have taken it at the union hall since April 1968. (Tr. 474) 22. The examination given at the union hall since April 1968 has been a one part journeyman’s examination. (Tr. 540) The examination given at Seattle Community College has, at the direction of the union, been a two part journeyman and apprentice test. The first part was devised by the union and the second by an instructor at the college. (Tr. 382-83) 23. It is the policy of Local 99, based upon the advice of counsel, not to file reports of the racial composition of the union with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Pl. Ex. 247, p. 107) From the foregoing Findings of Fact regarding Sheet Metal Workers Local 99 the Court makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 99 is a labor organization within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (d) and is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e(e). 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to it by virtue of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Attorney General is authorized under § 707(a) of that Act to institute suit to enjoin a pattern or practice of discrimination and request such relief as may be necessary to insure the full enjoyment of rights described in Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a) 3. Defendant Local 99 has pursued a pattern and practice of conduct with respect to employment opportunities in the construction industry which has denied blacks because of their race or color the same opportunities made available to whites. IV FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICABLE TO SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 99 JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING COMMITTEE 1. Defendant Sheet Metal Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (J.A.T.C.) is an unincorporated body composed of eight members, of whom four are representatives of Sheet Metal Workers Local 99 and four are representatives of contractors party to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 99. (Admitted Facts, par. 2) 2. The J.A.T.C. administers and controls the apprenticeship program in the construction phase of the sheet metal industry within the jurisdiction of Local 99 and determines which persons shall be admitted to this program. (Admitted Facts, par. 3) 3. At present there are approximately 100 apprentices indentured in the sheet metal apprenticeship program of whom seven are Negro. Five of the seven were accepted after September 1969, and the other two were accepted in May 1968. No other Negroes ever participated in the sheet metal apprenticeship program. (Admitted Facts, par. 4) 4. The J.A.T.C. has its offices at 2800 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington. It shares an office with Sheet Metal Workers Local 99. (Admitted Facts, par. 5) 5. The purpose of the apprenticeship program is to train apprentices to become journeymen in the sheet metal trade. After their acceptance into the program, apprentices are indentured to the J.A. T.C. and are enrolled in a four year program involving on the job training and related classroom instruction. (Admitted Facts, par. 6) 6. According to the published standards for admission to the sheet metal apprenticeship program since 1965, applicants should be between the ages of 18 and 24 (excluding time spent in military service), pass a GATB aptitude test, complete an application form and submit a high school transcript. Preference is given to high school graduates. (Pl. Ex. 90, p. 6; Pl. Ex. 91, p. 6; Pl. Ex. 92, p. 6; Pl. Ex. 107) 7. Applicants are interviewed by the J.A.T.C. which evaluates their qualifications and votes to accept or rejeet each applicant. There is no objective evaluation process. If an applicant is accepted, his name is placed on a waiting list and he is assigned work when employment is available. The committee votes to determine the order in which the accepted applicants will be referred out. (Pl. Ex. 107, pp. 4-5) 8. The J.A.T.C. periodically closes its application books when the demand for apprentices is disproportionately low to the number of applicants on hand. The J.A.T.C. advises the Apprenticeship Information Center and the Apprenticeship Division, Washington State Department of Labor & Industry when the books are closed. (Admitted Facts, par. 7) 9. Approximately one-third to one-half of the current sheet metal apprentices attended a pre-apprenticeship training program at Seattle Community College before being accepted into the program. (Tr. 1609; Pl. Ex. 94) 10. Prior to 1968, when the first full-time coordinator was appointed, applicants had to go to the union hall to file an application. If the individual did not meet the program’s requirements he could be told by the union that he was not acceptable for the program. (Pl. Ex. 107, pp. 5-6) Union officials and office personnel continue at the present time to furnish applications to prospective applicants when the coordinator is not available. (Pl. Ex. 248, p. 60; Tr. 1117) 11. From the following facts the Court infers that the J.A.T.C. has given preference to friends and relatives of union members and union contractors and that this has had the practical result of denying to blacks an equal opportunity to learn about and be accepted into the sheet metal apprenticeship program: a. The sheet metal apprenticeship application form requests the name and occupation of the applicant’s father. (Pl. Ex. 93) b. The J.A.T.C. had notice that 30 of the 99 currently indentured apprentices indicated on their applications that their fathers were sheet metal workers. (Pl. Ex. 104a; PI. Ex. 95) c. Prior to the summer of 1969, information concerning the sheet metal apprenticeship program was principally made known to persons having contact with the sheet metal trade, virtually all of whom were white. (Pl. Ex. 295, pp. 37-38) d. The Chairman of the J.A.T.C. has stated that they ‘will more or less look favorably on an individual who has family members who are sheet metal workers. This indicates to us that the individual had some familiarity with the field and therefore stands a better chance of becoming successful in it.” (Pl. Ex. 107, p. 3) e. William Pfiel’s application form put the J.A.T.C. on notice that he applied on January 12, 1968. Pfiel was indentured into the apprenticeship program the same day. (Pl. Ex. 95) Pfiel is the son of the Chairman of the J.A.T.C. (Pl. Ex. 295, p. 36; Pl. Ex. 95) The J.A. T.C. had notice from the face of Pfiel’s application that he applied at a time the J.A.T.C.’s application books were closed. (Pl. Ex. 106; Pl. Ex. 95) Pfiel was accepted ahead of two blacks, George Brooks and Glenn Blakely, who the J.A.T.C. had notice applied before him. (Pl. Ex. 95) f. The older application forms used by the J.A.T.C. did not ask for the occupation of the applicant’s father. On some of these applications marginal notations were made indicating the applicant’s relatives who were in the trade. (Pl. Ex. 98 — “brother and dad in trade”; Pl. Ex. 99 — “Ed Kubacki’s son-in-law”) 12. The J.A.T.C. regularly accepts applicants whose application forms have put it on notice that the applicant is ineligible for consideration under published standards. The following are instances where the J.A.T.C. has apparently ignored such notice: a. The age requirements of the program are 18-24. The J.A.T.C. nonetheless has accepted applicants whose application forms put the J.A.T.C. on notice that the applicants were far over-age. (Pl. Ex. 97; Pl. Ex. 100) The J.A.T.C. has rejected applicants who were under 18 (Pl. Ex. 110 — Paul Martin); and at other times has accepted applicants who the J.A.T.C. had notice indicated on their application that they were under age and the sons of sheet metal workers. (Pl. Ex. 104a — Ronald Hesse; Robert G. Matayo; Pl. Ex. 95) b. The published standards state that high school graduates are preferred. This standard is inconsistently enforced. On one occasion the J.A.T.C. accepted an applicant who had put it on notice that he had a ninth grade education (Pl. Ex. 96 — Rodney Arnold), and on another occasion rejected an applicant for the reason that he was one-half credit short of his high school diploma. (Pl. Ex. 110-McGrath) Nine of the currently indentured apprentices indicated on their applications that they were not high school graduates. The J.A.T.C. had notice that four of these stated on their applications that they were sons of sheet metal workers. (Pl. Ex. 95; Pl. Ex. 104a) c. It is the stated policy of the J.A.T.C. not to interview an applicant until he has submitted a high school transcript and aptitude test. (Tr. 1108-09) However, the J.A.T.C. has conducted interviews and on occasion has accepted persons before they have submitted either of these documents. (Pl. Ex. 108; Pl. Ex. 116 — Thomas Stoll; Pl. Ex. 118 — Dickson and Alexander; Pl. Ex. 119 — Lee and Reed; Pl. Ex. Ill) d. The J.A.T.C. frequently closes its application books. During such periods applications are not supposed to be taken. (Admitted Facts, par. 7; Pl. Exs. 106, 112, 114, 115, 117) However, the J.A. T.C. has permitted persons to apply even though it had notice from the face of the application forms that the applications were being made while the books were closed. For example, the books were closed from December 26, 1967 to May 27, 1968. The reason given for closing the books at this time was the large number of applicants on hand. Nevertheless, during the period the books were closed four persons were accepted whose application forms indicated that the applications were made while the books were closed. (Pl Ex. 95 — Pfiel, Buske, Grantham, Mellema) The committee was on notice that two of these applicants were indentured into the program on the date they applied. (PL Ex. 95 — Pfiel, Buske) It is not clear from the J.A.T. C.’s records how often applications are accepted, but it seems clear that the books have been closed a substantial portion of the time since December 1967. (Pl. Exs. 106, 112, 114, 115 and 117) From the facts set forth in the foregoing paragraph, it is reasonable to infer and the Court so finds that the J.A. T.C. has closed its books in order to limit the number of applicants while at the same time give preference to relatives and friends of persons in the trade; further, that relatives and friends either have knowledge concerning when the books are open or are permitted to apply even when the books are supposed to be closed. 13. Based on the following facts the Court finds that the J.A.T.C. discriminated against George Brooks and Glenn Blakely, two blacks who applied in 1967, by giving preferential treatment to whites who applied after them. a. George Brooks contacted Glenn Arnold, Local 99’s Business Representative, in November 1967 and inquired about the apprenticeship program. (Tr. 375, 1024; Pl Ex. 95, p. 56) Arnold suggested that Brooks enroll in a one-year, full-time pre-apprenticeship sheet metal training course at Seattle Community College to prepare him for the sheet metal apprenticeship program, even though Brooks had four years experience in the sheet metal trade. (Tr. 376, 1022-23) Brooks was accepted and indentured in the apprenticeship program in May 1968 after spending seven months in the Seattle Community College day school. (Tr. 1024-27; Pl Ex. 95, p. 58) b. Several of Brooks’ classmates in the day school who also were accepted into the apprenticeship program were given one year’s credit for their day school experience. Brooks was given no credit for the seven months he spent in the day school. (Tr. 1031; Pl Ex. 95— Buske, Mellema, and Grantham) c. William Pfiel, the son of the Chairman of the J.A.T.C., applied on January 12, 1968 and was indentured on the same date. (Pl. Ex. 95, 104a) He did not have to attend the pre-apprenticeship training course at day school. (Pl Ex. 94) The J.A.T.C. had notice from its application forms that two blacks— Brooks and Blakely — applied before Pfiel, but were not accepted and indentured into the program until May 1968. (Pl Ex. 95, 104a) 14. Based upon the following facts the Court finds that the defendant has discouraged blacks from applying to the apprenticeship program and from following through with their applications. a. Willie Thomas is a black who at-program. (Tr. 396) Thomas was never tempted to apply to the sheet metal apprenticeship program in March 1969. (Tr. 390) In the course of four visits to the union he was not given an application or any information concerning the contacted by the J.A.T.C. even though he left his test results at the union office and the State Employment Service sent the union a copy of his high school transcript. (Pl Ex. 280; Tr. 396) The normal practice of the personnel in Local 99’s office is to furnish an applicant with an application if the coordinator is not available. (Pl Ex. 248, p. 60; Tr. 1117) b. Bruce M. Bibb is a black who applied for the sheet metal apprenticeship program in June 1969. (Tr. 398-99) Bibb was referred to Local 99’s office by the State Employment Service with a letter. He spoke to a woman behind a window and asked for a man who was to look at his test results. (Tr. 405) He returned a few days later at which time he spoke to a man who invited him into the office. Bibb gave the man his test results. (Tr. 406) Contrary to the normal practice, Bibb was not offered an application for the apprenticeship program on either of these two occasions. (Tr. 407) He returned a few days later but was told the man he was to see was not in. (Tr. 408) Bibb was never contacted by the J.A.T.C. (Tr. 409) c. In the summer of 1969, the Urban League referred several blacks to the sheet metal apprenticeship program. (Pl. Exs. 250-253, 291; Tr. 412) They were not given an application the first time they went to Local 99’s office but were told to return as the apprentice coordinator was on vacation. (Tr. 415; Pl. Exs. 251, p. 13; 250-253,291) At least four of them returned a second time, met with the coordinator, and were given applications to fill out. (PI. Ex. 105) The coordinator told them, among other things, that there was a long waiting list and made other comments that generally discouraged them. (Pl. Exs. 251, pp. 16, 17; 250, pp. 21, 23, 24, 26, 31; 253, pp. 11, 14, 22, 27, 31; Tr. 419-20) At the time these men applied there could not in fact have been a waiting list, since the J.A.T.C. began accepting applicants again in September and all of the persons whose applications were accepted after September had applied subsequent to the time (July) when the blacks referred by the Urban League applied. (Pl. Ex. 95, 104a) 15. The applications of blacks have been treated differently from those of whites. Four blacks applied for the program on July 14, 1969. (Pl. Ex. 105, 250, 251, 253, 291) No action was taken on their applications by the J.A.T.C., ostensibly because they were not complete in that the J.A.T.C. had not received the applicants’ high school transcripts and aptitude test results. (Tr. 1108, 1110) No effort was made by the J.A. T.C. to contact these black applicants to determine whether they were still interested in the program. (Tr. 1110) Both before and after July 14, 1969, however, whites have been interviewed by the J.A. T. C. prior to the time they submitted their high school transcripts or took their aptitude tests and have been accepted subject to completing their requirements. (Pl. Ex. 108; Pl. Ex. 116 — Thomas Stoll; Pl. Ex. 118 — Melvin Dickson and Donald Alexander; Pl. Ex. 119 — James Lee and Wilbert T. Reed; Pl. Ex. Ill) Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact regarding Sheet Metal Workers Local 99 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee the Court makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Defendant J.A.T.C. is a joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeships within the meaning of 42 U. S.C. § 2000e-2(d). 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties to it by virtue of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Attorney General is authorized under § 707(a) of that Act to institute suit to enjoin a pattern or practice of discrimination and request such relief as may be necessary to insure the full enjoyment of rights described in Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a) 3. Defendant J.A.T.C. has pursued a pattern and practice of conduct with respect to employment opportunities in the construction industry which has denied blacks because of their race or color the same opportunities made available to whites. V FINDINGS OF FACT APPLICABLE TO PLUMBERS AND PIPE-FITTERS LOCAL NO. 32 1. Defendant Local 32 is a labor organization consisting of an unincorporated association of members engaged in the plumbing and pipefitting industry in the State of Washington in the following counties: King, Clallam, Chelan, Jefferson, the western portions of Okanogan and Douglas, and the northern tip of Kittitas from the 47°15/ line. The union’s offices are located at 2311 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington. (Admitted Facts, par. 1 and 2) 2. Local 32 has approximately 2,800 members. (Admitted Facts, par. 2) Approximately 1,900 members are in the construction classifications, i.e., plumber, steamfitter, welder, or refrigeration mechanic. (Admitted Facts, par. 10-13; Tr. 582, 583) Only one of the construction classification members is black. (Tr. 598, 599) He is David Williams, a welder whose application was accepted in September 1966, when Local 32 was recruiting from the Boilermakers’ Union (Pl. Ex. 258, pp. 52-53) in order to alleviate an acute shortage of welders. (Pl. Ex. 254, pp. 38, 56, 62) Local 32 has 92 black members in its non-construction divisions. (Admitted Facts, par. 14) Virtually all of these blacks are employed as marine pipefitters in the shipyards, where the hourly wage rate for journeymen is $4.18. The hourly wage rate for journeymen in the construction trades is $6.25. (Tr. 599) 3. Local 32 maintains an exclusive hiring hall providing plumbers, steamfitters, welders, and refrigeration mechanics for employers in the construction industry with whom it has a collective bargaining agreement. (Admitted Facts, par. 14) The agreement provides that the hiring hall of Local 32 shall be the exclusive source of employees performing plumbing and pipefitting work within the jurisdiction of Local 32. (Pl. Ex. 126, Art. V; Pl Ex. 127, Section 1) Employers may hire from sources other than the union hall only if the union does not fill an order within five days. (Pl. Ex. 126, Art. V, Section 6) Workmen hired in this manner are then required to obtain union membership by their eighth day of employment. (Pl Ex. 126, Art. IV, Section 1) Local 32 is a party to collective bargaining agreements with employers in the construction industry performing approximately 90 percent of the plumbing and pipefitting work within the jurisdiction of Local 32. (Admitted Facts, par. 3) 4. Local 32 is party to a collective bargaining agreement with shipyard employers within its jurisdiction. (Def. Ex. E-6, Tr. 1624, 1625) Article 3(c) of this agreement requires the employers to give the union 24 hours advance notice when additional employees are needed. In practice, most workmen are hired directly by the shipyards (PL Ex. 254, pp. 43-44), which establish their job qualification standards independently of the union. (Def. Ex. E-6, Art. 3(c) (2) (b); Tr. 1624) Shipyard employees are required as a condition of continuing employment to apply for union membership on the 31st day after employment and to maintain union membership. (Def. Ex. E-6, Art. 3(b)) The remaining non-construction employers for whom Local 32 members work hire. their employees directly. (Pl Ex. 254, pp.