user: Write an article with the title: "CASE ACCEPTED ON EMPLOYER'S ROLE IN UNION BIAS"

Article:

assistant: 
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19— The Supreme Court, dealing with a case that has considerable importance for employers who rely on labor unions to screen and supply workers, agreed today to decide whether the employer can be held liable when the union hiring hall discriminates against blacks.

The Justices accepted appeals by several groups of building contractors in Pennsylvania from a Federal appeals court ruling that held 1,488 contractors jointly liable with the International Union of Operating Engineers for the virtual absence of blacks in the state's construction industry. The union itself did not appeal the ruling that it had engaged in discrimination.

The Federal District Court in Pennsylvania, in an order affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, established ''goals'' for the hiring of black construction workers in various parts of the state, ranging from less than 1 percent to 18 percent of the work force. A separate trial, which has not yet been held, will determine the monetary liability of the contractors and the union for past discrimination.

Under the hiring hall system, the union determines who gets a union card and sends members to fill the employers' requests for workers. A group of black construction workers, supported by the Pennsylvania state government, sued both Local 542 of the Operating Engineers, which covers eastern Pennsylvania and all of Delaware, and the employers who participated in the hiring hall. At the time of the trial, in 1976, 70 percent of the employers had never hired a black worker.

In their Supreme Court appeal, General Building Contractors v. Penna., No. 80-280, the employers argued that they should not be held responsible for the union's discriminatory acts because, under the terms of various collective bargaining agreements, they were prohibited from going beyond the hiring hall to hire workers directly.

The employers also argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, on which the lawsuit was based, requires proof of discriminatory intent to establish a violation.

Other action at the Court today included these: Cable Television

The Court agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to a New York State law that requires landlords to provide access for the installation of cable television cables at no more than nominal fees.

The state law was passed in 1972 after the Legislature found that some landlords were setting exorbitant fees for allowing cable television companies to provide service to tenants. Under the new law, the state's Cable Television Commission set the allowable fee at $1.

The case dealt with today, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan, No. 81-244, was brought by the owner of an apartment building on West 105th Street in Manhattan who argued that the law amounted to trespassing and a deprivation of property without compensation.

The landlord lost at all three levels of the New York State courts. Both New York State and New York City joined the cable television company in asking the Supreme Court to affirm the state court rulings. They argued that the intrusion required to install the cable was minimal and that the law represented the judgment of the Legislature that the growth of cable television was in the public interest. Special Elections

The Court agreed to decide the constitutionality of a Puerto Rican law governing the filling of legislative vacancies that occur between elections. Under the law, the political party that won the seat in the previous election has the exclusive right to field a candidate for the special election. The special election is run like a primary, in which only that party's members may vote.

Fourteen states provide for some form of party control in special interim elections. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut all have special elections that are open to all voters.

The Puerto Rican law, which was upheld by the island commonwealth's Supreme Court, is being challenged by members of minority parties who argue that to allow a political party to ''own'' a legislative seat is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of one person, one vote. (Rodriquez v. Popular Democratic Party, No. 81-328.) Eviction Notice

The Court agreed to decide the constitutionality of a Kentucky law that allows a tenant to be evicted afer a notice of eviction has been posted on the apartment door, whether or not the notice is ever seen by the tenant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the law as failing to meet constitutional standards of due process. The law was challenged by tenants in a Louisville public housng project who were evicted after they failed to respond to a notice they never saw. Louisville officials brought the appeal, Greene v. Lindey, No. 81-341.

The briefs did not indicate how many states use the Kentucky procedure. In New York, a copy of a posted eviction notice must also be sent to the tenant by certified or registered mail. 'Beeper' Warrants

Three Justices, one short of the number needed to hear a case, voted to hear an appeal from a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that Federal agents do not need a warrant to install an electronic tracking device or ''beeper'' in a car they want to keep under surveillance. Lower courts are divided on this question, which the Court will probably agree to hear sometime soon. Associate Justices Byron R. White, William J. Brennan Jr. and Lewis F. Powell Jr. wanted it decided now. (Michael v. U.S., No. 81:112).