It was with a mixture of amusement, resentment and frustration that I read James J. Kilpatrick's column {op-ed, Sept. 16} attacking building and construction trade unions for seeking to pass a piece of legislation.

I laughed aloud because Mr. Kilpatrick has gotten situs picketing legislation, which is not even pending this session, mixed up with a bill, which has already passed the House (H.R. 281), that would prevent the same company from operating both union and nonunion with in the same geographical area -- oftentimes with the same equipment, personnel and organization. This type of business practice, known as "double breasting," has but one goal: avoiding the terms of a collective bargaining agreement that is voluntarily signed. This so-called "double breasting" bill is simply a matter of justice -- requiring a contractor to abide by the agreement he signed. It has absolutely nothing to do with common situs picketing.

What is so frustrating about the whole debate over S. 492 is that the Right to Work Committee, the Associated Builders and Contractors and other virulent antiunion groups, whose party line Mr. Kilpatrick invariably follows, have no hesitancy ever about departing from the truth in their desperation to defeat not only double breasting legislation, but nearly anything sought by organized labor at any time and under any circumstances. Mr. Kilpatrick's ability to criticize both bills (S. 492 and H.R. 281) in this instance should at least depend upon his ability to understand one. ROBERT A. GEORGINE President Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO) Washington