Evening star., 1952-12-30
Alexandra Unit
Defends Ban on
Union Builder
Suggests Housing
Controversy May Go
To Attorney General

Inc alexandra ReQeVelOpment
and Housing Authority today de-
Tended its decision to reject the
low bid for a 148-unit public hous-
ing project and suggested that the
Attorney General of the United
States might be called on to settle
the controversy.
ARIA agreed to throw out the
low bid of Victor Beauchamp, Inc,
of Washington because it is a
union shop contractor. Its offer
was $1,157, $40.
A protest had been filed prior
to the opening of the bids, claim
ing that employment of a union
shop contractor would violate Vir-
ginia's right-to-work law and
secondary boycott provisions of
the Taft-Hartley Act.
The Public Housing Admins
tration, which must approve any
contract award by the Alexandria
agency, has insisted that the job
go to the lowest bidder, and has
refused to approve a contract with
the second lowest bidder, Eugene
Simpson & Bros. of Alexandria,
which bid S62, 500 above the Beau
champ firm.
Warned City May Lose.
The Federal agency has warned
that Alexandria might lose out if
the contract is not awarded before
Federal funds are exhausted on
projects elsewhere in the country.
In a 19-page release. given to
the press today, the Alexandria
agency gave its first public ex-
planation of what happened.
It said it felt PHA was being
extremely unfair and arbitrary
by threatening to halt the project
unless the contract is awarded i'm
mediately to the low bidder.
Wouldn't it be the fair and
reasonable solution for PHA to
continue to hold the funds avail
able for the Alexandria project
until the ruling is obtained from
the Attorney General of Virginia
and also by the Attorney General
of the United States, if desired by
the PHA?" the statement inquired.
A ruling by Virginia Attorney
General j. Lindsay Almond, jr.,
already has been requested and
the Alexandria City Council has
asked PHA to reserve funds for
the project until that opinion is
obtained.
Outlines Basis.
Chronologically. the Alexandria
authority gave the following
grounds for its decision:
/. Certain of the building trades
unions in Washington are opposed
to the principles of the Virginia
right-to-wor bill which pro-
hibits discrimination on account
of membership or non-member-
ship in any labor union or labor
organization.
2. An association of'AFL unions,
known as the Washington Build
ing Trades Council. has agree
ments or understandings with as
sociations of Washington con-
tractors, known as Master Build
erS' Association and Contractors
Council, the effect of which SUBJ
stantially results in exclusive use
of union labor. Beauchamp is
affiliated with the two contractors
groups.)
3. Washington union contrac-
tors or sub-contractors approved
by the Washington Building
Trades Council in order to avoid
labor problems at projects under
construction.
4. Virginia contractors obeying
the Virginia statute must operate
open-shop rather than union
shop. AS a result. many Virginia
contractors find they are not on
the approved list or are on the
black list of the Washington
Building Trades Council.
Charge Discrimination.
S. Washington union contrac-
tors find it expedient to discrimi-
nate against Virginia contractors
rather than run the risk of diff
f1culties with the Washington
Building Trades Council or men,
ber AFL building trades unions.
6. Certain Washington bidders,
directly or through contractor or
ganizations, were parties to such
understandings with the Washing
ton Building Trades Council. They
told certain Virginia contractors
that it would be impossible fo1
their Sub-bids to be accepted be-
cause they operate open-shop OF
were on the blacklist of certain
unions. Zone of these sub-con-
tractors, Southern Iron Works OF
Alexandria, an open-shop steel
fabricator. was the firm that filed
the protest about employment OF
union shop builders.)
Z. The general contractors, prior
to submitting a bid on the Alex
andria public housing job. OBJ
tanned subbids for materials to de-
termine their overall bids.
8. The Alexandria Redevelop-
nent and Housing Authority did
not have the benefit of free, un-
restricted competitive bidding as a
result of the arrangements be-
tween the Washington Building
Trades Council or member unions
and the Washington union con-
tractors because of the discrimina-
ton against Virginia open-shop
contractors. Virginia general con-
tractors were deprived of the bids
Of Washington union Sub-contrac-
tors in like manner.
Lose Employment.
8. Virginia craftsmen and labor
erS working for, or desiring to
work for. Virginia cpen-shop con-
TRACTORS, are deprived of employ
meMt because of membership OF