Bradley v. Southern Pacific Company, Inc. Appellant's Appendix

Public Court Documents
December 15, 1971
Cite this item
Bradley v. Southern Pacific Company, Inc. Appellant's Appendix preview
Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 2763b6ae-ca9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873
Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Bradley v. Southern Pacific Company, Inc. Appellant's Appendix, 1971. 2763b6ae-ca9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/25074cfb-0ee9-438e-84f7-15b88860faca/bradley-v-southern-pacific-company-inc-appellants-appendix. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!
    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEQLS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 
NO. 71-3521

HENRY BRADLEY,
Appellant,

v .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC., and 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE and 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, 
EXPRESS and STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589,

Appellees.

Appeal From The United States District Court 
For The Southern District of Texas Houston Division

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD MCDONALD & MCDONALD 1834 Southmore Blvd. 
Houston, Texas 77004

Attorneys for Appellant

i



I N D E X
Page

Complaint..............................................  la
Defendant Southern Pacific Company's answer ............  7a
Motions of defendant Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 

and Steamship Clerks Local 589 to dismiss or for 
summary judgment ....................................  19a

Supplement and amendment to motions of defendant Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship 
Clerk Local 589 to dismiss or for summary
judgment............................................ 2 4a

Motion to remove motion from the court calendar . . . . .  26a
Motion to substitute counsel for plaintiff..............  28a
Order allowing substitution of counsel for plaintiff . . 29a
Motion for leave to file amended complaint ............ 30a
Answer of Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and 

Steamship Clerk Local 589 in opposition to 
motion of plaintiff to file first amended
complaint............................................  31a

Defendant Southern Pacific answer in opposition to
plaintiff's motion ........   38a

Plaintiff's memorandum of l a w ...................... .. . 42a
Defendant's Southern Pacific response in opposition

to plaintiff's memorandum of l a w ....................  47a
Reply of defendant Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 

and Steamship Clerk Local 589 to plaintiff's 
contentions in support of motion to file amended 
complaint............................................  51a

Memorandum denying motion to file amended complaint . . .  55a
Notice of appeal........................................  61a
Fifth Circuit's order dismissing appeal ................  63a
Answer of defendant Local filed after obtaining 

leave in open court to waive its motion to
dismiss..............................................  64a

- i -

t



Page
Plaintiff's motion to join the Brotherhood of 

Railway, Airline, Steamship Clerks as a
party defendant 69a

Answer of defendant Local 589 72a
Affidavit of James L. Highsaw, Jr., as attorney

for the Brotherhood 74a
Transcript Volume I 80a
Transcript Volume II 283a
Findings of fact and Conclusions of law 476a
Judgment 492a
Notice of appeal 494a
Docket entries 495a
Clerk's certificate 500a

- ii -



IN •; MX u n i t e d  t e s  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  

F O R  Til .! ' S O U T H E R N  D IS T R IC T  O F  T EX A S 

I! OUST OK D I  VISION

H EN R Y  B R A D L E  V,

P l a i n t i f f  .

!>

S O U T H E R N  P A C I F IC  C O M P A N Y , IN C . AND 
B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A IL W A Y , A IR L IN E ,
AND S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,  F R E IG H T  H A N D L E R S, D  .  ^
E X P R E S S  AND S T A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S ,  )•) ^
L O C A L  689,

D e f e n d a n t s .

W;
V)
l">

P5 C IV IL  A C T IO N  N O T 1
Ev

D *

'?/V

C O M P L A IN T

I.

A. J u r i s d i c t i o n  o l  th i s  C o u r t  i s  in v o k e d  p u r s u a n t  to  

42 U . S . C , . ,  S e c t io n  2C00e-5(X}„ T h i s  i s  a  s u i t  in  e q u i ty  a u t h o r i z e d  

and  i n s t i t u t e d  p u r s u a n t  to  T i t l e  V II o l  th e  A c t  of C o n g r e s s  k n o w n  a s  

" T h e  C iv i l  R ig h t s  A c t  of 1 9 6 4 , " ,  42 U . S . C . ,  S e c t io n s  2 0 0 0 e ,  e t  s e q .  

J u r i s d i c t i o n  of t h i s  C o u r t  i s  in v o k ed  to  s e c u r e  th e  p r o t e c t i o n  of and  

r e d r e s s  th e  d e p r i v a t i o n  of r i g h t s  s e c u r e d  b y  42 U „ S , C „ ,  S e c t io n s  

2 0 0 0 c ,  c t  s e q . ,  p ro v i d in g  f o r  i n ju n c t iv e  an d  o th e r  r e l i e f  a g a i n s t  

r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in  e m p l o y m e n t .

B .  On o r  a b o u t  M a rc h  27, A . D „ , 1967, P l a i n t i f f  f i l e d  a 

c o m p l a i n t  w ith  th e  E q u a l  E m p l o y m e n t  O p p o r tu n i ty  C o m m i s s i o n  a l l e g in g  

denial ,  b y  th e  D e f e n d a n t s  o f  h i s  r i g h t s  u n d e r  T i t l e  V II  of th e  " C iv i l  

R ig h t s  A c t  of 1 9 6 4 , " ,  42 U . S . C . ,  S e c t i o n s  2 0 0 0 c ,  e t  s e q .  On o r  

a b o u t  A p r i l  2, A . D , , 1968, th e  C o m m i s s i o n  found  r e a s o n a b l e  c a u s e  

to  b e l i e v e  t h a t  a  v io l a t i o n  of t h e  A c t  a s  a l l e g e d  b y  th e  P l a i n t i f f  h ad  

o c c u r r e d  b y  t h e  D e f e n d a n t s .  T h e  C o m m i s s i o n  n o t i f i e d  th e  P l a i n t i f f  

by l e t t e r s  u n d e r  th e  d a t e  o f  D e c e m b e r  2, A. D. , 1968, t h a t  th e  C o m -  

m i s s i o n  h ad  no t  a c h ie v e d  v o lu n t a r y  c o m p l i a n c e  by  th e  D e fe n d a n t  

t h r o u g h  c o n c i l i a t i o n  a s  p r o v i d e d  by  T i t l e  VIT of th e  " O wl! R ig h t s  A rt  

of 1961, and  t h a t  th e  P l a i n t i f f  w as  e n t i t l e d  to  in i t i a t e  a  c iv i l  

a c t i o n  in th e  U n i te d  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  a s  p r o v i d e d  by  S e c t io n  

2 0 0 0 c -5 ( f )  of th e  " C i v i l  R ig h t s  A c t  of 1964. ^  3 i ) 3



C .  N e i t h e r  th e  S la t e  uf T e x a s  n o r  th e  C i ty  of H o u s to n  

h a s  a  la w  p r o h i b i t i n g  th e  u n law fu l  e m p l o y m e n t  p r a c t i c e s  a l l e g e d  

h e r e i n .

II.

T h i s  i s  a  p r o c e e d i n g  fo r  a p r e l i m i n a r y  and  p e r m a n e n t  

i n ju n c t io n  r e s t r a i n i n g  D e fe n d a n t s  f r o m  m a i n t a i n in g  a  p o l i c y ,  p r a c t i c e ,  

c u s t o m  o r  u s a g e  of

1. D i s c r i m i n a t i n g  a g a i n s t  P l a i n t i f f  b e c a u s e  of 
r a c e  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  c o m p e n s a t i o n ,  t e r m s ,  
c o n d i t io n s  an d  p r i v i l e g e s  of e m p lo y m e n t ;

2. M a in ta in in g  a  C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a in i n g  A g r e e m e n t  
w h ic h  f r e e z e s  P l a i n t i f f  in  a  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  
s e n i o r i t y  p a t t e r n  w h ic h  r e s u l t e d  f r o m  p r i o r  
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  e m p l o y m e n t  p r a c t i c e s  by  
D e f e n d a n t s ,

3. l i m i t i n g ,  s e g r e g a t i n g  and  c l a s s i f y i n g  i t s  
e m p l o y e e s  o r  i t s  m e m b e r s  in  w ay s  w h ich  
d e p r i v e  P l a i n t i f f  of e m p l o y m e n t  o p p o r t u n i t i e s  
an d  o t h e r w i s e  a d v e r s e l y  a f f e c t  h i s  s t a t u s  a s  
a n  e m p l o y e e  b e c a u s e  of h i s  r a c e .

m.
T h i s  i s  a l s o  a  p r o c e e d i n g  f o r  a  d e c l a r a t o r y  j u d g m e n t  

d e c l a r i n g  th a t  th e  D e fe n d a n t s  h a v e  e n g a g e d  in  a  c o u r s e  of c o n d u c t  

t h a t  d e p r i v e s ,  o r  t e n d s  to  d e p r i v e  th e  P l a i n t i f f  of e q u a l  e m p l o y m e n t  

o p p o r t u n i t i e s  an d  o t h e r w i s e  a d v e r s e l y  a f f e c t s  h i s  e m p l o y e e  s t a t u s  

b e c a u s e  of h i s  r a c e .

IV.
In a l l  of t h e s e  C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g  A g r e e m e n t s  w h ic h  

h a v e  r e g u l a t e d  th e  w a g e s  and  c o n d i t io n s  o f  t h e  e m p l o y m e n t  of th e  

P l a i n t i f f  h e r e i n  up  u n t i l  t h i s  d a t e  and  th e  o n e  w h ic h  r e g u l a t e s  th e  

w a g e s  an d  c o n d i t io n s  o f  th e  e m p l o y m e n t  of P l a i n t i f f  a t  th e  p r e s e n t  

t i m e  h a v e  d i s c r i m i n a t e d  a g a i n s t  th e  P l a i n t i f f  h e r e i n  b e c a u s e  o f  h i s

r a c e .

394



V

P la i n t i f f ,  H e n r y  L>i n d io y ,  a  n e g r o ,  i s  a  c i t i z e n  of tho 

U nite .!  S t a t e s ,  r e s i d i n g  in  th e  C i ty  of H o u s to n  and  tho  S ta t e  o f  T e x a s .

VI.

D e f e n d a n t ,  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  In c .  i s  i n c o r p o r a t e d  

u n d e r  th e  l a w s  of D e le  w a r e .  T h e  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  T n c . . 

i s  d o in g  b u s i n e s s  in  t h e  S t a t e  o f  T e x a s  , C i ty  of H o u s to n  w ith  

H . T .  S t c r c t t ,  913 F r a n k l i n  A-venuc, H o u s to n ,  T e x a s ,  7 7 0 0 1 ,  a s  

t h e i r  d u ly  a u t h o r i z e d  a g e n t  f o r  tho s e r v i c e  of p r o c e s s .  T h e  S o u th e r n  

P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  o p e r a t e s  and  m a i n t a i n s  p a s s e n g e r  an d  f r e i g h t  

r a i l  l i n e s  and  t e r m i n a l s  in  th e  S o u t h w e s t e r n  and  W e s t e r n  U n i te d  S t a t e s .  

T h e  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c , ,  i s  e n g a g e d  in th e  b u s i n e s s  of 

t r a n s p o r t i n g  c o m m e r c i a l  f r e i g h t s  an d  U n i te d  S t a t e s  m a i l  i n t e r s t a t e  

in th e  S o u t h w e s t e r n  and  W e s t e r n  U n i te d  S t a t e s .  T h e  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  

C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  is  a n  e m p l o y e r  w i th in  th e  m e a n i n g  o f  42 U . S . C .

S e c t i o n  2 0 0 0 e  (b). T h e  B r o t h e r h o o d  of R a i l w a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  and  

S t e a m s h i p  C le r i c s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p r e s s  a n d  S ta t io n  E m p l o y e e s ,  

L o c a l  589 i s  a n  u n i n c o r p o r a t e d  l a b o r  a s s o c i a t i o n  o p e r a t i n g  in th e  

S t a t e  o f  T e x a s ,  C i ty  of H o u s to n  and  i t s  p r i n c i p a l  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  and  

P r e s i d e n t  in  T e x a s  i s  M r s .  F l o r c n e  G a r f i e l d ,  201 M a in  S t r e e t ,  R o o m  

640, H o u s to n ,  T e x a s ,  7 /0 0 2 .  T h e  B r o t h e r h o o d  of R a i lw a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  

and  S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p r e s s  and  S ta t io n  E m p l o y e e s ,  

L o c a l  58 9 is  a  l a b o r  u n ion  w i th in  th e  m e a n i n g  o f  42 U . S . C .  S e c t i o n  

2 0 0 0 o -2 ( e ) ,  T h o  S o u t h e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y  is  e n g a g e d  in a n  i n d u s t r y  

a f f e c t in g  c o m m e r c e  w i th in  th e  m e a n i n g  o f  42 U . S . C ,  S e c t io n  2 0 0 0 c  (h),



V If.

P la i n t i f f ,  H o m y  B r a d l e y ,  w a s  o r i g in a l ly  h i r e d  b y  D e fe n d a n t ,  

S o u t h e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  in  19<J5. In  N o v e m b e r  of 1934 

P l a i n t i f f  w as  t r a n s f e r r e d  to  th e  m a i l  r o o m  w ith  th e  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  

of " p o r t e r . "  In  1944 , P l a i n t i f f  b e c a m e  th e  h e a d  of th e  m a i l  r o o m  

an d  h a s  h o ld  t i l l s  p o s i t i o n  up  to  th e  p r e s e n t  t i m e .  P l a i n t i f f  c o n te n d s  

th a t  d u r i n g  t h i s  w h o le  p e r i o d  of t i m e ,  s i n c e  N o v e m b e r ,  A. D . , 1934 

up to  th e  p r e s e n t  d a t e ,  h e  w as  p e r f o r m i n g  c l e r i c a l  r a t h e r  t h a n  

m a n u a l  d u t i e s  a n d  t h a t  h e  i s  b e in g  p a id  l e s s  t h a n  a  c l e r i c a l  w ith  

c o m p a r a b l e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,  in v io l a t i o n  o f  th e  C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a in i n g  

A g r e e m e n t ,  b e c a u s e  o f  h i s  r a c e .  D u r in g  a l l  t h i s  t i m e  h e  h a s  b e e n  

l i s t e d  in  S e n i o r i t y  G r o u p  T w o ,  w h ic h  g e n e r a l l y  c o v e r s  e m p l o y e e s  

p e r f o r m i n g  m a n u a l  l a b o r .  T r a d i t i o n a l l y ,  C r o u p  O ne e m p l o y e e s ,  

p r i m a r i l y  c l e r i c a l  h a v e  b e e n  w h i te ,  w h e r e a s  C r o u p  T w o  e m p l o y e e s ,  

p r i m a r i l y  m a n u a l ,  h a v e  b e e n  N e g r o .  On J a n u a r y  1, A . D . , 1966, 

G r o u p  T w o  e m p l o y e e s  w e r e  g iv e n  G r o u p  O ne  s e n i o r i t y  d a t e s  of 

J a n u a r y  1, A . D . ,  1966 .  P l a i n t i f f ' s  G r o u p  O ne  s e n i o r i t y  d a t e  w as  

d e t e r m i n e d  to  b o  J a n u a r y  1, A, D . , 1966 ,  P l a i n t i f f  c o n te n d s  t h a t  

h i s  G r o u p  O ne s e n i o r i t y  d a t e  sh o u ld  b e  N o v e m b e r  J ,  A . D . , 1934.

T h e  D e f e n d a n t s '  C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a in i n g  A g r e e m e n t s  h a v e  r e s u l t e d  

in f r e e z in g  th e  P l a i n t i f f  in to  a  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  s e n i o r i t y  p a t t e r n  

w h ic h  w a s  a  r e s u l t  o f  p r i o r  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  e m p l o y m e n t  p r a c t i c e s  

on t h e  p a r t  o f  th e  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  and  t h e  B r o t h e r 

hood  o f  R a i l w a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  an d  S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,

E: p r e s s  r n d  S ta t i o n  E m p l o y e e s ,  B o c a l  589 .

A c c o r d in g l y ,  P l a i n t i f f  d u ly  t i l e d  c h a r g e s  with th e  E q u a l  

E m p l o y m e n t  O p p o r tu n i ty  C c-minis io n ,  a l l  a s  a l l e g e d  in  P a r a g r a p h  

t -B ,  s u p r a .

3! *6



V Iff,

P l a i n t i f f  h a s  nu p l a i n ,  a d e q u a t e  o r  c o m p l e t e  r e m e d y  a t  

la w  to  r e d r e s s  th e  w ro n g s  a l l e g e d  h e r e i n  an d  t h i s  s u i t  f o r  a  p r e 

l i m i n a r y  an d  p e r m a n e n t  in ju n c t io n  is  h i s  on ly  m e a n s  o f  s e c u r i n g  

r e l i e f .  P l a i n t i f f  is  now  s u f f e r i n g  an d  w i l l  c o n t in u e  to  s u f f e r  

i r r e p a r a b l e  i n j u r y  f r o m  th e  D efen d an ts*  p o l i c y ,  p r a c t i c e ,  c u s t o m  and  

u s a g e  a s  s o t  f o r t h  h e r e i n .

W H E R E F O R E ,  P l a i n t i f f  r e s p e c t f u l l y  p r a y s  t h i s  C o u r t  

a d v a n c e  t h i s  c a s e  on th e  d o c k e t ,  o r d e r  a  s p e e d y  h e a r i n g  a t  th e  

e a r l i e s t  p r a c t i c a b l e  d a t e ,  c a u s e  t h i s  c a s e  to  bo in  e v e r y  w ay  

e x p e d i t e d  aiid upon  h e a r i n g  to:

1. G r a n t  P l a i n t i f f  a  p r e l i m i n a r y  an d  p e r m a n e n t  
in ju n c t io n  en jo in in g  th e  D e f e n d a n t s ,  S o u th e r n  
P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  an d  B r o t h e r h o o d  of 
R a i l w a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  an d  S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  
F r e i g h t .  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p r e s s  an d  S ta t io n  
E m p l o y e e s ,  L o c a l  589, f r o m  c o n t in u in g  o r  
m a i n t a i n in g  th e  p o l i c y ,  p r a c t i c e ,  c u s t o m  
a n d  u s a g e  of d e n y in g ,  a b r i d g in g ,  w i th o ld in g ,  
c o n d i t io n in g ,  l i m i t i n g  o r  o t h e r w i s e  i n t e r f e r i n g  
w ith  th e  r i g h t s  o f  th e  P l a i n t i f f  a3 p r o v i d e d  
u n d e r  T i t l e  V II  o f  th e  " C i v i l  R ig h t s  A c t  of 
1984 , 42 U, S , C . , 1 S e c t i o n s  2 0 0 0 c ,  c t  s e q .

2 .  G r a n t  P l a i n t i f f  a  p r e l i m i n a r y  and  p e r m a n e n t  
in d u c t io n  en jo in in g  th e  D e f e n d a n t s ,  S o u th e r n  
P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  I n c . ,  an d  B r o t h e r h o o d  of 
R a i l w a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  an d  S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,
F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p r e s s  an d  S ta t io n  
E m p l o y e e s ,  L o c a l  589 ,  f r o m  c o n t in u in g  o r  
m a i n t a i n in g  th e  p o l i c y ,  p r a c t i c e ,  c u s t o m  
and  u s a g e  of d e n y in g ,  a b r i d g i n g ,  w i th o ld in g ,  
c o n d i t io n in g ,  l i m i t i n g  o r  o t h e r w i s e  i n t e r f e r i n g  
w i th  th e  r i g h t s  of th e  P l a i n t i f f  to  e n jo y  e q u a l  
e m p l o y m e n t  a d v a n c e m e n t s  a n d / o r  t r a i n i n g  fo r  
a d v a n c e m e n t  a s  s e c u r e d  b y  T i t l e  V II  of th e  
" C iv i l  R ig h t s  A c t  of 1964 , 42 U . S . C . ,  S e c t io n s  
200Ce, e t  s e q .  in c lu d in g  b u t  n o t  l i m i t e d  to  th e  
e l i m i n a t i o n  o f . d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  s e n i o r i t y  l i n e s  
b a s e d  on r a c e ,  c o l o r ,  o r  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n .

397 .#>



3. G r a n t  a  d e c l a r a t o r y  j u d g m e n t ,  d e c l a r i n g  
t h a t  t h e  D e fe n d a n t s  h e r e i n  leave fo l lo w ed  
a  p r a c t i c e ,  c u s t o m  an d  u s a g e  of d i s c r i m 
in a t in g  a g a i n s t  th e  P l a i n t i f f  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  
e q u a l  e m p l o y m e n t  o p p o r t u n i t i e s  an d  w ith  
r e s p e c t  to  c o m p e n s a t i o n ,  t e r m s ,  c o n d i t io n s  
a n d  p r i v i l e g e s  of e m p l o y m e n t  a s  a n  e m p lo y e e  
b e c a u s e  of r a c e .

a .  A l lo w  P la i n t i f f  h a c k  p a y ,  h i s  c o s t s  h e r e i n ,  
in c lu d in g  r e a s o n a b l e  a t t o r n e y ' s  f e e s  to  b e  
f ix ed  b y  t h i s  C o u r t ,  t a x e d  a s  c o s t s  and  
c h a r g e d  a g a i n s t  th e  D e f e n d a n t s  h e r e i n  a s  
p r o v i d e d  b y  42 U . S . C , ,  S e c t i o n  2000c~5 
( p a r a g r a p h  lc) and  o th e r  a d d i t i o n a l  r e l i e f  
a s  m a y  a p p e a r  to  t h i s  C o u r t  to  b e  e q u i t 
a b l e  an d  j u s t .

V IN C E N T  C p  O 'B R IE N  
A t t o r n e y  F o r  P l a i n t i f f  
708 M a in  S t r e e t  
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77002  
C A - 3 - 3 6 5 1

8



Ii'i TIIE UNITED STATE? DISTRICT COURT 
•FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,

V S.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6&-H-107<SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY,
AND BROTHERHOOD OK RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 
FREIGHT KANDD3RS, EXPRESS 
AND STATION EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL,UNION NO. 389,

Defendants.

A_ N S W E R

COMES NOW Southern Pacific Company, defendant, 
an' files this its original Answer to plaintiff's 
original Complaint arid for such Answer woul'1 show the
following::

a

I .

First Defense
The Complaint, fails to state a claim upon 

which re l ief can be granted and/or the Court lac vs 
,■Jurisdiction o rer the subject matter of the suit be
cause the sole basis of plaintiff's suit - the al
legation of a discriminatory seniority pattern contained 
Lri Paragraph VII of the Complaint - was never asserted 
It:, any charge before the Equal Employment Op
portunity Commission. Plaintiff's charge before the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the 
Commission's decision, copies of which ore attached hereto 
es Exhibits A a nr: 3, were expressly .limited to a claim

7<x~
402

Depu* jr



that plaintiff was Improperly class if led as a mail 
room porter rather than a mail clerk. Having failed 
to raise any issue before the Commission with respect 
to any alleged discriminatory seniority pattern, the 
plaintiff I.s not free to alter hie claim before this 
Court to include allegations not previously asserted 
before the Commission. Civil Rights Act of 19*54,
Section 706, 4? U.S.C. §o0C0e-5.

II.
lecond Defense

The Complaint falls to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted and/or the Court lac s 
Jurisdiction over the subject matter because the 
plaintiff failed to bring a civil action within ninety 
(90) days after the filing of a charge with the 
Commission as required by Section 706(e) of the Act.
4° U.S.C. §h000e-5(e).

Pleading further, if such be necessary, and 
subject to and without waiving the foregoing defenses, 
the defendant would show the following:

III.
Defendant admits that this is a suit instituted 

pursuant to Title VII of the Act of Congress known as 
the Civil Rights Act of 1944, as alleged in Paragraph 
I-A of the Complaint, but for the reasons stated in 
Paragraphs I anJ II of this Answer, denies that this Court 
has jurisdiction of the subject matter.

IV.
With regard to the allegations contained in 

Paragraph I-B of the Complaint, defendant admits that 
nn March ?7, .1967, plaintiff filed a complaint with the

403
f  4-



quvl Employment Opportunity Commieeion alleging 

'enin.1 of Wifi rights under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of . Defendant further admits that 
on April 2, 1958, the Commission issued a decision 
that in its judgment there was reasonable cause to 
believe that a violation of the Act as alleged In 
plaintiff's charge had occurred. Defendant also admits 
that the Commission notified plaintiff by letter 
dated December ", 1966, that the Commission had failed 

to achieve voluntary compliance by the defendant 
through conciliation as provided by Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1954, and that plaintiff was entitled 
to initiate 0 civil action in United States District 
Court as provided by Section ?OOOe-5(F) of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1954.
V.

Defendant admits the allegations contained 

in Paragraph I-C of the Complaint.
VI.

Defendant admits that this is a proceeding 
for a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining 
defendants from maintaining alleged discriminatory 
practices enumerated in Paragraph II, Subparagraphs 1, 
p and 3 of the Complaint, but for the reasons stated 
in Paragraphs I and II of this Answer denies that this 
Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and further 
denies each and every other allegation contained in 

Paragraph II of the Complaint.
VII.

Defendant admits that this is a proceeding 

for a declaratory judgment in which plaintiff seeks a

-3-

404



’pelt: vet Ion that defendant has engaged in a course or 
conduct that tends to deprive plaintiff of equal 
employment opportunities because of his race, as alleged 
ir Parp"rapii Ill of the Cooplaint, but for the reasons 
stated in Paragraphs I and II of this Answer denies that 
this Court has jurisdiction of the subject natter and 
further denies that plaintiff is entitled to the relief 
sought.

VIII.
With regard to the allegations contained in 

Paragraph IV of the Complaint, defendant denies that 
ary of the collective bargaining agreements which have 
regulated plaintiff's wages arid conditions of employ
ment up until this date, including the one which 
currently regulates plaintiff's wages and conditions of 
employment, have in any way discriminated against the 
plaintiff because of his race.

IX.
Defendant admits the allegations contained 

lii Paragraphs V and VI of the Complaint.
X.

,/ith regard to the allegations contained in 
Paragraph VII of the Complaint, defendant admits that 
pin lot iff, Henry Bradley, was first hired by defendant 
Southern Pacific Company in 1925• Defendant admits 
that In November of 1934 plaintiff was transferred to 
the mail root, with the classification of mall room 
porter. Defendant also admits that in 1944 plaintiff 
became the head of the mail room and has hold this 
position up to the present time. However, defendant

405
/c3 to



expressl" >enies that during? this period of time .i.Toi:;
1/3':- unt l.'i the present tine plaintiff has been per far!. - 
inc, el erica 1 rather than menus! duties. Defendant 
further - /nice that p.lalntlff Is paid less than a 
elorlcaleemployee with comparable responsibilitlea, Ir.
•• t olot low of the collective bargaining agreement, be
en use of '.is race. Defendant spirits that from until
the present time plaintiff has beer listed in Seniority 
Group Two. but defendant expressly denies that Seniority 
Group Two yenorrlly covers employees performing c-anua.l.
tabor. Defen-lant further denies that tra 1 ittonally Group 
One employees have been white, whereas Group Two em
ployees here been, tier>.ro. Defendant admits that on 
January V, IJd', Group Two employees were given Group Gee

i o.rity •-tries of January L . i.f •. . Defendant also 
•cri.ts that plaintiff's Group One seniority --ate was 
intermit.c-’ to he January 1, lybh. Defendant denies, how
ever, that plaintiff's Group One seniority -’ate shoul : bo 
Nov<?;-her t, 193l!. Defendant further denies that rie- 
>n-.’er;ts' collective bargaining nsreeventa have resulted' 
in froevJng the plaintiff into a discriminatory seniority 
pattern which woe the result of prior discriminatory em
ployment practices on the part of Southern Pee if
aul the.Brotherhood of Railway, Airline end :ten 
Troight Handlers, ixpresa and Station Employees,

xc Company 
liohip Cl -r.'.a.. 

h o c  r, 1

Defendant admits that plaintiff duly fil-;-' 
chat-res with the Eqtusl Employr-ent Opportunity CornelssLow, 
but. -'eoles, re stated In Para .graph I of this Answer, 
that plriuttfi 's chcr:"e before tno CorJitiosion if; any way

4 0 6

//  '-C.



vp Int-.v' to the .complaints he now attempts to assert 
i-.r the first time in this Court, and denies each nrr'
*r:t. r.> other allegation contained in Paragraph VII 
of the Complaint.

XI.
For the reasons stated herein, defendant 

•vai.'S that plaintiff ie entitled to any of the relief 
sought Paragraph VIII of the Complaint.

XII.
Dei'p.i-'ant would further ohovr that it is

>*: ••"■.rrcf i.-cly committed to the principle and practice 
of ardii.-g r-i'pie 1. ei r '.oy - 'i't opportunities to all 
employees without regard to race, color, religion, se
er national origin and that the tern,3 and conditions 

its ..•i..p.-lo;/i;>ent of the plaintiff are and have Pee*, 
ie full compliance with the Civil Rights Act of l'to-A.

XIII.
As :• result o- plaintiff's action herein the 

.e>><‘a:tt has Icon required to retain the services of 
the ;tivv..reigned attorneys, and defendant is entitled 
to rec.f or re-.* portable attorney's fees under Sect ion 

r ) Of the Act. Ur- U.S.C. §f000c-5(Ji).
'.JHERKJ'OriB, premises considered, defendant 

.••St" out upo ; '.'luel trial and hearing hereof it <
,u,i y.-.erd that toe injunctive relief prayed for by 
r Ie i- ti i'..' he ’e;jir*d, that, plaintiff ta te nothin;.' by hie 
ou!t rr.-, ; that •’ei’endnt. t 'o ne.uce without day and with 
nil costs of court i n c u r r e d  and reasonable attorney's face 
heroin, and that defendant have such other air’ further 
relief, .tcnernl and special, nt law or in equity, to 
which it ray show itself justly entitled.

('• 3R, ;/TO, SlfSPHKRD
■ v ’ ; -iz.

407

/  •• - ^  / '
7 , .Trf * J
Richer-: R. jiihui inoo Brneraon 3ui Idiri Roust Of!, Tree V'.)-) ;
At!' v re rys  .!o r  Sot*’.horn  P a c i f i c  Cot



CSHTIFICATE Of SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the above air1 
;'or« Answer of helen'ioct, Southern Pacific
Corapn;...y, has beet; serve’ on the plaintiff by 
i-’f- •" oor.-y OX the setie to bio attorney of recor-1,

on

xen, yoi- Main. Street, Houston, Texas 
the f ‘lay of February, ?. > >}.

fee:ta; t.
r*

* c*o r;p copiftH :> ' «juc!i Answer to Hr, ft 11.’. :.«rr.
Tower Bull-.’in.", Washington, D.. C. 'KMjit . 

’obert L. Steely, yOO Houston First -a/inyc 
. Houston, Terrs TP'O'x, attorneys for .Ic-- 
irjt'icvhcol of Hallway, Airline anH Stear.shiv 
i’reiyht Handlers, Express ar.6 Station Employeos,

L o an  1

V. R. Burch, Jr. 
Hieher ’ R. Brnnn

408
/ J W



\ ■>;!

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
h a w  a complaint,  fill in this form and mail ii to the Equal / --^TmsTt>rrii.js to he used only to file a charge of discrimination 

I'uriMt Oppoitunity Commission's Regional Oftice in youi ^ - -o r r  RACE^C’OLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN
,i' soon .is possible. It must he mailed within 'TO days alter the d:s- s '

.'rwVii.o.itorv act took place. (See addresses on hack pane) /c?s .
3  BfcCEiYfcfl • . Case rile No.

______A.^2 : 1
____ Phone N'umber-_̂ .-_ir~̂ C-..

tPl EASE PRINT OK TYPE)

N a m e _____H e n r y  K. B r a d l e y  _

N; r s'et Address _  

Citv ___________

1 3 0 5  TUla n c  S t r e e t  
H o u s to n

P \  RCGIOI./ I. G. i : . •
\ w k --------A u y r t  f t----------- r --------

J s \ _____r c c c
y /-. Texas w 

S t a t c > s ^ ^ _ r ^ ; w ^ -Zip Code_

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSc O f : (Please check one)
Race or Color Ai Religious Creed □  National Origin CD Sex □

W ho discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentlceshi; 
'committee. If moreJh.-m one. list ;ill „  , ,
N im e  Soutnorn Pacific Railroad Company
i street Address__Southern. Pacific .Building.___________________________________________ _____

t  H o u s t o n __ ____ ________ ______..State. ____T e x a s ______
AND tother parties if any)__H o i ; th _ e r h o o d _ o f _ R a i l i e a y  _SJ, e c . ' - s h i p - C l e r k s .

.Zip Code-

B ettes  Bui ld in g , Houstoni Texas Loca l 5S9

Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes □  No □

I: your cr.arge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?-

3  The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month_ February_____ Day____ 9_

_Number Do not know C

.Year__1 9 6 7 -

7  Explain what unfair thing was clone to you:
I have beer, in  charge o f  the mail room a t  the Southern P a c if ic  Building fo r  
more than ten years. A ll o f  my work i3  that o f  a m i l  c lerk  for  the company. 

'  ------------------1 have a p p l ie d  t o  t h e  company andt,he~union- V ■ change n y -c la s s if ic a t io n -fr o n
K t C £ X X Y . : . i ^ 7

at “5 f  T  va^Tio tn r N  eg ro s y “

led  aa. ____ ____  -

3 1 swear or affirm that I have read the al : --e charge and that it is troy toyheN
D .:v /? ^  : y  2. / A '-P  -7 / y h ,

Su'jscr.hed and sworn •« before me ■___
. ___

v knowledge, information and belief. 
/ /  ' ,  .

,Si*i*w.->ur njnu'l
— 1 9 6 - ^

409 ftfe.



EQ UAL L M L L O Y M L N I O PPO RTU N ITY  COMMISSION 

W ASHINGTON, D.C.. 20506

Henry Bradley
Charg ;i ng Pa r ty

Case Mo. AU 7-3-183 
AU 7-3-183U

v s .

Southern Pacific Railway Company
Honston, Texas

and
Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship 

Clerks, Freight Handlers and 
Station Employees, Local 589 

Houston, Texas
Respondents

alleged violation: Continuing
filing: March 27, 1967
service of charge: August 14, 1967

DECISION

SUMMARY OF CHARGE
The Charging Piirty alleges unlawful employment practices 
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
in that:
1. Respondents maintain a Collective Bargaining Agree

ment under which he is improperly classified and 
paid as a porter instead of a clerical, because of 
his race (Negro).

2. The Company and the Union have -peatedly refused to 
reclassify the Charging party ora porter to clerk 
because of his race (Negro).

/ S ’ 4-- '

Date of 
Date of 
Date of

410



PageSouthern Pacific Railv.vy Company 
Case Koe. hli 7-3-183 & AU 7-3-3.83b

s i w m .a r Y 0 ?  Id

C h a r g i vug P a : i
I n  .19 34 h e  w:
o 1 a s  s :i f  i ca t  i c
C h a r e ] ng  P a r i
P a r i  y i s  s t  i 1
D u r i n g cl 11 t l
T w o , v:•h.i.ch e

v v:a s o r i g in .1.ly hired by
s tra nsfor n*L 1 to the mail
n of "por Lc r Di 1 9 4 4 ,
y, ho bC Ca head of the
1 cl ass. i f iCid as a porter
is t.ime he ).-is been 1 is to
i i c ral ly cr)VCrs employees

Res: >o ■ idor.i. i n 19 2 3. 
room under the 
according to the 
na.il room. Charging 
in the mail room.
:] iii Seniority Group 
performing manual labor.

Charging -Pa 
time ho war 
and that P*: 
wi tli compar 
Co].] oct ivc

rty contend.'- that during thin whole period of 
u: rforming clerical rath.or than manua.1 duties 

; i'on.dents cire paying hii.m .loss than a clerical 
able respond ibilities, in violation of the 
bargaining Agreement, because of his race.

The Company defends or. the ground that the Charging Party 
is already receiving $35.00 more par month than the other- 
three men working with him in the mail room and thus the 
Charging Party is being compensated for his work.

The Respondent Union defends 
Party can cxorci.se his full 
clerical jobs. The evidence

on the ground that the Charging 
seniority rights to transfer to 
subs tanti.ates the a] 1 egat.ions

of discrimination made by the Charging Party.

The investigation revealed that th"> Charging Party is not 
performing the work of a porter. his responsibilities in
clude the continuous handling of - 11 types of mail; regis
tered United States mail, insured puree1 post, certified 
mail and special delivery, in ftddi • : to railroad- regis
tered mail in addit t h Oh - Par tv ; t  V n n w  a n H

keep abreast of the United States pun 
all classes of mail, while rt: ntair.' 
control over the other employcor in 
Charging Party is presently reccm vi:.

1 rate changes for 
genera] supervisory 
m: 11 room. The 

$ 50S . '90 month ly .

411 / a



South rn Paci fic Pvailwa y Commany Page -3-
Case No 3 . AU 7-3 -18 3 J AU 7- 3-18 3d

An an „,iySJ 51 o f t11 c pos t:.od vacanc ics j: can '1c. that ternporary
c 1 c r iC'£'. 1 p:r.itiod'.s with. rospon sib.iliti o. clnd dut i e s of
morely genera l fi 1ing an.d m iSCO 11 an oous Cl o ri cal dut .i c s
car ry rai.t s o £ iav f a i* i n ex ce. ss of the Cha rg ing Par ty ’s
ra to, do -■pi Li !.0 ap]j><u Ci it. 1O s. 3 or sk i 11 an.d re spoi l s ihi 1ity
requi od for the parti c• n 1a.r job.

The P r, ic Agrcc..iont bet On the Corny-tii d the Unic»n,
A r t i ci ]O 11, Y<ul o Da f i ni tion of C‘1 e r ica] Wo rkers, sta to sI

(a) Clerical Workers •- "Employees who regularly 
devote rot less than four (-1) hours per day to 
the writing and calculating incident to keeping 
records and accounts, rendition of bills, reports 
and state:rents, handling of correspondence and 
similar work."

The foregoing definition appears to cover the Charging 
Party’s duties of receiving sorting, mailing, and handl
ing all typos of United States and Company mail eight 
hours a day, which ho has been doing for over 20 years 
as chief of the mail room.

Tradi tionally. Group 1 employees, primarily clerical,
' Group 2 employees, primarilyhave c Gil w i. to-, wherea

man ua 3 , havG be en Negro
employees wpre given Gr
1966. Th i s is Charging
v:c r.cod r.c t OOP.Cj ■? v- 1. ̂ "1
that the Ch.clrging Party
son i.or i ty to advanco to
ins tint Cfic-rgo is that
v;ork of a C1eri cal vhi1
ce i v .iy.cj a j~c lto o f pay ]
1 e s s expo r i0nee and res

1 seniority dates of January 1

o classified 
ov/er than oth 
ponsibi1i tv.

Union’s response 
that Group 1 
jobs, since his 

resent]v performing the 
a porter and re
el ericals with

ild exercise 
or clerical
c* r~

-*-1 t

412
: 7



Page -4-S  O U l 11C L i 1

C'aae Nos
Ive.i f;i.e Kai.lv/iiy Company 
Ai: 7-3-183 & AU 7-3-183U

jL‘I H if>i as th : evidence indicates, were i
facl. t h a t  i V;C- b  arging Party were Negro
c l i\\-si f j,ed e..s a clerk and receiving pay
v/i Idi his re •' Pon m in i 3 i t i  OK.

D1 'Cb 8i Qa

Rea enable cn use exists i■ 0’ RelieveCo: pany 11nd t,n 1 o;i are in v i o 1 a t i o) iC i v ii Right;- Act of 100;, s a] leg

For the Co;

/

Marie D. v;

413
' * ut- '

not for the 
he would be 

commensurate

t . h e  R e s p o n d e n t
tie Vli of the

amission:

L.lson, Secretary



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v . :

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. and : CIVIL ACTION NO.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND : 68-H-1079
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, :
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES, LOCAL 589 :

9 H*
. <» 

<  CL

■i S ? Nr\ ,  H* O*V- 0)VS O H

Defendants.

MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE 
AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION 
EMPLOYES LOCAL 589, TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ____________

Now comes one of the defendants herein, Brotherhood of Railway,

Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station 

Employes Local 589 (hereinafter referred to as Local 589), to respect

fully move this Court to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative 

to grant it summary judgment on the basis that the court lacks juris

diction over the subject matter or the complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted against the said defendant Local 589 

on the grounds that:

(1) Said defendant Local 589 is not a labor organization within 

the contemplation of Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(Act), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5; and

(2) Said defendant Local 589 is not a party to any agreement, does 

not possess, and has not exercised any authority to negotiate or deal

with any agreement setting forth the rules and working conditions affecting 

the employment rights of the plaintiff which are alleged to give rise to 

a course of conduct that deprives, or tends to deprive plaintiff of equal

/y«»-
414



2

employment opportunities that otherwise adversely affects his employee 

status because of his race; and

(3) Said defendant Local 589 is not a "labor organization" or an 

agent of a labor organization which is authorized to deal with, or has 

dealt with, employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates 

of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, as set forth 

in Section 701(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e(d); and

(4) Contrary to the provisions of Sections 706(a) of the Act, 1*2 

U.S.C.A. 2000e-5(a), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(Commission) made no endeavor, and could not have, by way of conference, 

conciliation, or persuasion with said defendant Local 589 to eliminate 

any alleged unlawful employment practice said to have been participated 

in by defendant Local 589 or any of its officers or members, such as to 

warrant the filing of this complaint against defendant; and

(5) Contrary to the provisions of Section 706 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 

2000e-5, the complaint purports to constitute the institution of a civil 

action against said defendant Local 589 for alleged unlawful employment 

practices in violation of the provisions of the Act which were not set 

forth in the charges filed by plaintiff with the Commission; and

(6) That contrary to the provisions of Section 706 of the Act, 42 

U.S.C.A. 2000e-5, the complaint purports to rely upon an investigation by 

the Commission of alleged unlawful employment practices by said defendant 

Local 589, and an endeavor to eliminate such unlawful employment practices 

by the Commission, whereas in fact no investigation or endeavor to con

ciliate was made by the Commission regarding the alleged unlawful employ

ment practices described in the complaint; and

(7) That the complaint relies upon a contention that the Commission 

made a finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that violations 

of the Act as alleged in the complaint by plaintiff had occurred, whereas 

in fact no such finding was made and no notice from the Commission was

415



- 3 -

issued as concerns said described violations by defendant Local 589, as 

required by Section 706(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5(a): and

(8) That contrary to the requirements of Section 706(d) of the Act,

42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5(d), the plaintiff failed to file a charge with the 

Commission within ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the alleged 

unlawful employment practices on the part of said defendant Local 589; and

(9) That contrary to the provisions of Section 706(e) of the Act,

42 U.S.C.A. 2000-5(e), plaintiff failed to file a civil action with respect 

to any alleged unlawful employment practice on the part of said defendant 

Local 589 within the thirty (30) day period required by the Act after 

receipt of a so-called Notice Letter from the Commission informing him 

of such alleged right; and

(10) That the contract of employment of plaintiff with the defendant 

Southern Pacific Company, Inc. (Southern Pacific), and the Railway Labor 

Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq. provided full and complete statutory and 

contractual remedies whereby any grievance arising under that contract of 

employment affecting plaintiff could have been fully adjudicated, and 

plaintiff has failed to allege resort to and exhaustion of said remedies 

or assert any valid reason for failure to do so prior to the filing of 

this action; and

(11) That the Constitution, Statutes, and Protective Laws of the 

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, 

Express and Station Employes of which plaintiff is a member contains a 

full and complete internal union procedure for the settlement of any claim 

that may be made by a member of that organization against the organization 

or any of its officers, members or agents, which procedures must be resorted 

to and exhausted by plaintiff prior to the filing of any civil action 

against the organization; and

(12) That the plaintiff has failed to allege resort to and exhaus

tion of the internal remedies provided by his union and has failed to 

assert any reason for failure to do so.

■X!
416



4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, said defendant Local 589 prays that 

the complaint be dismissed, of in the alternative, that it be granted 

summary judgment for failure of plaintiff to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted or a claim as to which this court possesses juris

diction to adjudicate.

Of Counsel:

BROWN, KRONZER, ABRAHAM, WATKINS 
& STEELY

500 Houston First Savings Building 
711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

MULHOLLAND, HICKEY & LYMAN 
620 Tower Building 
Washington, D. C. 20005

WILLIAM J. DONLON, General Counsel 
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and 

Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers 
Express and Station Employes 

1015 Vine Street 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Respectfully submitted,

CURTISS BROWN
500 Houston First Savings Building 
711 fannln Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorneys for Brotherhood of Railway, 
Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight 
Handlers, Express and Station Employes 
Local 589

417



-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Curtiss Brown, of Brown, Kronzer, Abraham, Watkins § Steely, one of the attorneys for the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station 
Employees, Local 589, in the above entitled and numbered cause, 
do hereby certify that I have on this I /4 day of February,
1969, by regular United States mail, sent copies of the above 
and foregoing motion to dismiss, etc., to Mr. Vincent C.
O'Brien, 708 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, attorney of record for the Plaintiff, and to Mr. V. R. Burch, Jr., care 
of Messrs. Baker, Botts, Shepherd 8 Coates, Esperson Building, 
Houston, Texas 77002, attorneys for the Defendant, Southern Pacific Company, Inc.

£ 3 4 ,
418



HOK THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OK TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC., and 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES, LOCAL 589

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
68-H1079

<3

f

SUPPLEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO
MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE 
AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STA1ION
EMPLOYES LOCAL 589, TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT___________•________

Now comes one of the defendants herein, Brotherhood of Railway, 

Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station 

Employes Local 589 (hereinafter referred to as Local 589), to sup

plement and amend its Motions filed herein by striking the last 

paragraph of said Alternative Motions and inserting in lieu thereof

the following:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, said defendant Local 

589 prays that the complaint be dismissed, or in the al

ternative, that it be granted summary judgment for failure 

of plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted or a claim as to which this Court possesses juris

diction to adjudicate, and that the Court grant it such

421



2

other and further relief as to the Court may appear appro

priate together with its costs, including a reasonable 

attorney's fee.

Respectfully submitted,

CURTISS BROWN
500 Houston First Savings Building 
711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

S
- _
IR.

IR.

620 Tower Buildl^n^ 
Washington, D. C. 20005Attorneys for Brotherhood of Railway, 
Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight 
Handlers, Express and Station Employes 
Local 589

Of Counsel:

BROWN, KRONZER, ABRAHAM, WATKINS 
& STEELY

500 Houston First Savings Building 
711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

MULHOLLAND, HICKEY & LYMAN 
620 Tower Building 
Washington, D. C. 20005

WILLIAM J. DONLON, General Counsel 
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and 

Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers 
Express and Station Employes 

1015 Vine Street 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

.A. 5 —
■ion



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY,

VS.

Plaintiff

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY,
INC., AND BROTHERHOOD OF 
RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL S89,

Defendants

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CIVIL ACTION NO. 68-H-1079

MOTION TO REMOVE MOTION FROM CALENDAR __________OF THE COURT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now the Defendant, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, 
AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589, and respectfully moves the Court 
to remove the motion of this Defendant for dismissal or summary 
judgment from the Court's calendar on April 21, 1969, for re
setting at some later date, and as grounds therefor this Defen
dant would respectfully show:

I .

This Defendant does not have sufficient facts to 
properly analyze the contentions set forth in the complaint.

II.
Interrogatories to acquire this information will be 

shortly filed, but would not be required to be answered under 
the Rules before April 21, 1969.

III.
Furthermore, there have been informal discussions as 

to possible courses of action which might satisfy the desires

4.34



of the Plaintiff and avoid the burdensome and expensive 
future litigation.

By reason of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed 
that the motions hereinabove referred to be removed from the
Court's motion docket on April 21, 1969, without prejudice to 
a later appropriate setting, if necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Curtiss Brown
500 Houston First Savings Bldg. 711 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002 
Capitol 2-7211
One of the Attorneys for the 
Defendant, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express 
and Station Employees, Local 589

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3 1, Curtiss Brown, do hereby certify that on this the 
day of April, 1969, a true and correct copy of the above 
“Foregoing Motion was forwarded by regular United States 

mail to Mr. Vincent C. O'Brien, 708 Main Street, Houston, Texas 
77002, attorney of record for the Plaintiff, and to Mr. V. R. Burch, Jr., care of Messrs. Baker, Botts, Shepherd 6 Coates, 
Esperson Building, Houston, Texas 77002, attorneys of record 
for tne Defendant, Southern Pacific Company, Inc. Notice was further given that the original of this instrument was being 
filed with the United States District Clerk for the Southern 
District of Texas, Houston Division.

iown V

- 2 -

j y u . 435



pom thl

Plaint iff

-.a-NO* D IS T R IC T  O f  t a u s

r.CeafGN DIVISION
A
>*

I CIVIL ACTION NO. 63-H107S'
. PACIFIC CCMPA..Y, INC. « -..-LCOCD OP RAILWAY,,■ -t-> c rr.- • -v r-o'-T'', • '•.'*■<•

■—*■**’ *. $ ±j03Aj>j
Lvfor.dar.ts

oOSCS OP SAID COUNT •
■"A'lCn TO SU3SIIT'JTB COUNSEL 

Now coces Vincent C. O'Brien Attorney of Recor< 
f In the aboveatyled and numbered cause and 
r leave of court to withdraw as said Attorney of Pace, 
ether requested that Cabrielle McDonald be henceforth 
-d Attorney of- Becord for Plaintiff.

eUKK, U. '• L'iS! WC i COv~ 
SOJTHEKiM UlSTKiv.:( Ot.

F ! L E D
JAM x 2 IS'/U

V. BAILEY IHOM/VS. JCU'ljK 
BV.K EUI

L v » ~ .

Vincent C. O'Brien
733 Bankers Mortgage Buildin ;70o Main Street
Houston, Tanas 77002
CA-3-3o31

Cabrielle McDonald lS3d Southmore 
Houston, Texas 77004 
JA-3-7423

7>
L ‘37—A-a ley

4 4 9
2



O.-

..cfon-.a n

- v.cy oo;.'.c on to bo heard the foregoing hotior. to 
u Counsel. The Court being of the opinion that oai, 
ould be- granted it is therefore
ê iD chat Vincent C. O'Brien have leave to vjithdrav; ; 
of Record ar.d he is hereby relieved of his duties 
ox ..ecora. It is further CRDBR3D that Gabrielle 
ave leave to represent the Plaintiff and she is 
designated Attorney of Record for Plaintiff. 
SIGX2D, REK32S3D AIO EfTBRBD THIS / U\ DAT Of

f a ,A.O. 1970.

I k  ' ^
J a liilb -La> a

C. G lB:?ien
l-.ô tSa.gc* Building

- - - —  wG. ., *i?cxc*o yy 002

J jjk jjd L & J i*  f <r ̂ /g.
».::oriesle l-.cfonald
^ O e u i /  G... O
Houston , Texas 77004 .

CLcriK, U. S L'li : RIPT .
southern  District B rtl 

F  ! L  E  D

JAN 1 o (9 /0

evvpftuTf

450 3 /. migrofilmi®



IN T in s  U N IT E D  STATES DISTRICT COURT

KOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

H O U STO N  DIVISION CLtlMV u.

H ENRY ERADEISY F I L E D

PI a in t if f A P R  '1 0 1 9 7 0
v s

S O U T H E R N  P A C IF IC  C O M PA N Y , IN C . )
A ND  B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A ILW A Y , ) C IV IL  A C T IO N  N O . 6 8 - H - l 079 
A IR L IN E , AND S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S , )
F R E IG H T  H A N D L E R S , E X P R E S S  AND )
S T A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S , L O C A L  589 , )

D e fe n d a n ts . )

M O TIO N  FO R  L E A V E  TO  F IL E  A M E N D E D  C O M P L A IN T  

Now c o m e s ,  p la in t i f f  H e n ry  B r a d le y  b y  an d  th ro u g h  h is  a t t o r n e y s  and  

p u r s u a n t  to  R u le  15 o f th e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f  C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e  r e s p e c t f u l ly  m o v e s  

th i s  C o u r t  f o r  le a v e  to  f i le  P la i n t i f f 's  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t  w h ic h  is  s u b 

m i t te d  h e re w ith  an d  fo r  g ro u n d s  th e r e f o r e  s t a t e  th e  fo llo w in g :

1 . O n J a n u a r y  16 , 1970 th is  C o u r t  e n te r e d  an  o r d e r  g r a n t in g  a  M o tio n  to  

S u b s t i tu te  C o u n se l w h e re b y  p la i n t i f f 's  p r e s e n t  c o u n s e l  b e c a m e  h is  a t to r n e y  of 

r e c o r d .

2 . P la in t i f f 's  F i r s t  A m en d ed  C o m p la in t  i s  d e s ig n e d  to  c la r i f y  an d  m a k e  

m o r e  s p e c i f ic  th e  a l l e g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  h is  o r ig in a l  C o m p la in t; e s p e c ia l ly  

to  s e t  f o r th  th e  l im i t s  o f the  c l a s s  a c t io n  in  an  e f f o r t  to  b e  o f  a s s i s t a n c e  to  th e  

C o u r t  an d  a l l  p a r t i e s  c o n c e rn e d .

3 . D e fe n d a n ts  w ill  in  no  w ay  b e  p re ju d ic e d  by  th e  f i l in g  o f th i s  A m e n d e d  

C o m p la in t .

4 . T h e  in t e r e s t s  o f  ju s t i c e  w ill  b e  s e r v e d  b y  th e  g ra n t in g  o f le a v e  to  f i le  

P la in t i f f 's  F i r s t  A m en d ed  C o m p la in t .

W H E R E F O R E , fo r  a l l  th e  fo re g o in g  r e a s o n s .  P la in t i f f  p r a y s  th a t  th is  

C o u r t  w ill g r a n t  h im  le a v e  to  f i le  P la in t i f f 's  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t .

R e s p e c tf u l ly  su b m it te d

G A B R IE L L E  K . M CD ON ALD  
M A RK  T . M CD ON ALD  
M C D O N A LD  & M CD O N A LD  
1834 S o u th m o re  B o u le v a rd  
H o u s to n , T e x a s  77004

A T T O R N E Y S  FO R  P L A IN T IF F453



N O T IC E  O F  H EARING ON M OTION FOR 
L E A V E  T O  F IL E  A M E N D ED

C O M P L A IN T

T O : M r .  V .R .  B u rc h ,  J r . ,  B a k e r ,  B o t t s ,  S h e p h e rd  & C o a te s ,
N ie ls  E s p e r s o n  B u ild in g , H o u s to n , T e x a s  77002 .
M r .  J a m e s  L . H ig h sa w , J r . ,  631 T o w e r  B u ild in g ,
W a sh in g to n , D .C .  20005
M r . C u r t i s s  B ro w n , B ro w n , K r o n z e r ,  A b ra h a m , W a tk in s  
.& S te e ly , 500 H o u s to n  F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u ild in g , H o u s to n ,
T e x a s ,  77002 .

P L E A S E , T A K E  N O T IC E  th a t  th e  u n d e rs ig n e d  w ill  b r in g  th e  

a t ta c h e d  M o tio n  fo r  L e a v e  to  F i l e  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t on  fo r  h e a r 

in g  b e fo r e  th i s  C o u r t  a t  th e  U n ited  S ta te s  C o u r th o u s e  in  H o u s to n , 

T e x a s  on A p r i l  20, 1970 a t  10 :00  a m . ,  o r  a s  so o n  th e r e a f t e r  a s  

c o u n s e l  c a n  b e  h e a r d .

< / r  /  ■> < <• < ( y  ^  J  * ( j r  > "
g a b r i e l l e  k . m c d o n a l d
M A RK  T . M CD O N A LD  
M C D O N A LD  & M C D O N A LD  
1834 S o u th m o re  B o u le v a rd  
H o u s to n , T e x a s  77004

A T T O R N E Y S  F O R  P L A IN T IF F

C E R T IF IC A T E  O F  SE R V IC E

T h is  is  to  c e r t i f y  th a t  th e  u n d e r s ig n e d  h a s  th i s  d ay  s e r v e d  a  co p y  of 

th e  fo r e g o in g  M o tio n  and  N o tic e  o f M o tio n  a n d  P la i n t i f f 's  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m 

p la in t  on M r . V .R . B u r c h ,  J r . ,  B a k e r ,  B o t t s ,  S h e p h e rd  & C o a te s ,  M r . J a m e s  

L . I l ig h s a w , J r . ,  631 T o w e r  B u ild in g , W a sh in g to n , D .C .  2 0 005 , a n d  M r . 

C u r t i s s  B ro w n , B ro w n , K r o n z e r ,  A b ra h a m , W a tk in s  and  S te e ly , 500 H o u s to n  

F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u ild in g , H o u s to n , T e x a s  7 7 002 , b y  m a i lin g  s a m e  to  th e m , a t 

t h e i r  a d d r e s s e s ,  p o s ta g e  p r e p a id  on th i s  th e  8 th  d ay  of A p r i l ,  1 970 .

if
<55̂ 5-

G A B R IE L L E  K . MCDONA

454



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.!-; .■>

HOUSTON DIVISION •soojherim oisvRicr c;
F I L E D

i

HENRY BRADLEY, j
IPlaintiff I

ISOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY,
AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589, J

IDefendants J

APR 2 ! 11970

V. 8AILEY THOMAS ' 
B I DEPUTY;

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
68-H-1079

ANSWER OF BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE 
AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589, IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO 
______FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship 
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local 
589 CBRAC Local 589) submits this answer to the Court in oppo
sition to the motion of the Plaintiff to file a first amended 
complaint.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The original complaint in this case was filed on or 

about December 31, 1968. It is in the form of a suit by Plain
tiff, Henry Bradley, alone asking primarily for injunctive 
relief against BRAC Local 589 and the Defendant, Southern 
Pacific Company, Inc. (Southern Pacific), alleging discrimina
tory practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A., Section 2000c ct seq.). On or aboiil 
February 17, 1969, BRAC Local 589 filed a motion to dismiss the 
complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment based 
on various Ini lures of the complaint to comply with the require-

i . r> 5



ments of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On or 
about March 21, 1969, BRAC Local 589 filed a supplement and 
amendment to this motion. Thereafter, on or about April 9, 
1969, BRAC Local 589 filed a set of interrogatories addressed 
to the Plaintiff in support of the motion. This motion is 
still pending.

On or about February 26, 1970, a new attorney sub
mitted to counsel for BRAC Local 589 a proposed "Plaintiff's 
First Amended Complaint" and inquired whether or not BRAC 
Local 589 would consent to the filing of the amendment.

An examination of the proposed amended complaint 
shows that the original Plaintiff, Henry Bradley, retired from 
employment with the Southern Pacific Company on or about August 
1, 1969. Mr. Bradley is, therefore, no longer an employee of 
the Southern Pacific who has any legal interest in the mainten
ance of employment practices on that railroad affecting him.
An examination of the proposed amendment shows that, therefore, 
it is now proposing to convert the action into a class action 
"on behalf of other Negro persons who are employed" by the 
Southern Pacific, although the original Plaintiff, Henry 
Bradley, is no longer so employed.

Both the original and proposed amended complaint show 
that the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission noti
fied the original Plaintiff, Henry Bradley, by letter dated 
December 2, 1968, that he could institute a civil action in an 
appropriate United States District Court within thirty days of 
receipt of said letter. It is, therefore, quite apparent that 
the statute of limitations set forth in Section 706(e) of Title 
Vli of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the bringing of a suit 
under such statute expired in the early part of January, 1969, 
and that it would not now be possible to file a new complaint 
setting forth a class action within such limitations. Conse 
the proposed amendment, when considered along with Mr. Bradl 
voluntary retirement from employment with the Southern Paci'

- 2 -

m•156



clearly constitutes an effort to create a new cause of action 
after the statute of limitations has run on such cause. It 
also constitutes an effort to bring what is in essence a new 
suit. For the reasons set forth below, such an amendment 
cannot be allowed, even though Federal Courts generally follow 
the practice of liberality in permitting amendments to com
plaints .

ARGUMENT
I .

The Proposed Amendment to the Complaint Should 
Be Denied Because the Statute of Limitations 
in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Does Not Now 
Permit the Filing of Such a Cause of Action 
________ Based upon the Statute_______________
As shown by subparagraph B of paragraph I of the ori

ginal complaint, the original Plaintiff, Henry Bradley, filed 
a complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission on or about March 27, 1967, and on December 2, 1968, 
the Commission notified him that he was entitled to institute 
a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court 
based upon his claims. Under Section 706(e) of Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A., Section 2000e-5(e)) 
such an action must be brought within thirty days after receipt 
of such notification from the Federal Commission. If a suit 
is not brought within this statutory period of thirty days, 
which expired on or about January 2, 1969, the Court does not 
have jurisdiction of the suit. King v. Georgia Power Company,
295 F.Supp. 943 (D.C. Ga., 1968).

Thus, it was not possible on or after January 2, 1969, 
to file a suit which complied with the statute of limitation 
requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Assuming arguendo 
that the original suit met the statute of limitation requirement* 
the voluntary retirement of Plaintiff, Henry Bradley, from his 
employment with the- Southern Pacific on or about August 1, 1969.
eliminated any legal interest that Mr. Bradley had in the , ,■ y **
tinning practices of the Southern Pacific and/or BRAC 1

157 3



and it also put him in a position where he could not ask the 
Court for any back pay based on his employment. Confronted 
with this situation, the new counsel for the Plaintiff has 
attempted to bring a class action on behalf of all Negro 
employees of the Southern Pacific and to do so by an amended 
complaint. It is respectfully submitted that the statute of 
limitation provisions of Section 706(e) of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not permit this to be done.
Jackson v. Ideal Publishing Company. 274 F. Supp. 318 (D.C. E. D
Pa., 1967). In that case, the Plaintiff attempted by an amend
ment to her complaint to raise new issues after the statute 
°i limitations applicable thereto had run. The Court held that 
this could not be done under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. On this point, the Court spoke as follows 
(page 320):

"Such amendment would have been allowed under 
F.R.Civ.P. 15 if plaintiff had requested it at a much 
earlier date. However, the two year statute of limitations, 12 Purd.Stat. I 34, ran as to those two addi
tional issues sometime during February and March of 
1J66. Thus to permit plaintiff to amend as of the 
dat<fj°u arSument defendants' summary judgment motion would be an allowance to amend around the statute of limitations."

In the present case, the attempted conversion.of the 
action by an amendment goes even further than what was proposed 
in the cited case.

II.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Do Not 
Permit the Filing of a New Suit by the Changing 
of the Theory of the Complaint by an Amendment 
___________  at this Date__________________
As is pointed out above, the proposed amendment wiuld

create an entirely new cause of action, i.e., essentially a
class suit in place of the original action by Plaintiff, Henry
Bradley, who has voluntarily retired from employment with the
Southern Pacific Company, which would, of course, substantially
broaden the case which Defendant BRAC Local 589 would have to
meet. Although the Federal Rules provide for liberality with

-4-

458
J r * ,  < K



respect to amendments to complaints, it is recognized that 
where there is an apparent or declared reason "such as undue 
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.", 
amendment should not be allowed. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 
at page 183 (1962). In the present case, the proposed amend
ment has not come until more than a year after the filing of 
the original complaint, many months after the original Plaintiff 
left the employ of the Southern Pacific, and its filing does 
impose undue prejudice on BRAC Local 589 by substantially 
broadening the subject matter of the complaint in a situation 
where the interest of the original Plaintiff is now at best 
minimal. It is respectfully submitted that under these circum
stances the proposed amendment should not be allowed-.

CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that upon the basis of 

the foregoing points and authorities the proposed amendment 
should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
JAMES L. HIGHSAW, JR.
631 Tower Building Washington, D. C. 20005

[} <f •*- ^ ilt<( 'tv' -
Curtiss Brown

500 Houston First Savings Bldg.
711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002 
Capitol 2-7211
ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT, 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE, 
AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT 
HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION 
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589

-5-

&459



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Curtiss Brown, do hereby certify that on this 
the / / day of April, 1970, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing Answer of Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 
and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local 589, in Opposition to Motion of Plaintiff 
to File First Amended Complaint was forwarded by regular 
United States mail to Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald, care of 
Law Offices of McDonald 5 McDonald, 1834 Southmore Boulevard, 
Houston, Texas 77002, attorneys of record for the Plaintiff, 
and to Mr. V. R. Burch, Jr., care of Messrs. Baker, Botts, 
Shepherd t, Coates, Esperson Building, Houston, Texas 77002, 
attorneys of record for the Defendant, Southern Pacific 
Company, Inc. Notice was further given that the original 
of this instrument was being filed with the United States 
District Clerk for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Curtiss Brown

- 6 -

460
J  7<c>



CLERK, U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

f i l e dFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
APR 2 4 19/0HOUSTON DIVISION

V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK
BX OEEUIt;

HENRY BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,
VS.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC 
AND BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, 
AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589,

Defendants.

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 68-H-1079 
§
§

§

§

DEFENDANT SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY'S 
ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Southern Pacific Company, Inc., a 
Defendant in the above-captioned cause, and files this its 
opposition to Plaintiff's motion to file first amended 
complaint, and in support thereof would state:

The persuasive reasons why Plaintiff should not 
be allowed at this late date to amend his Complaint 
expanding it from an individual action into a broad class 
action have been expertly presented in Answer of Brother
hood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight 
Handlers, Express Station Employees, Local 589, in 
Opposition to Motion of Plaintiff to File First Amended 
Complaint already on file in this action. Defendant 
Southern Pacific Company now joins with Defendant Union 
in asserting those cogent arguments contained in Union's 
Answer and would incorporate its arguments herein.

I n  f u r t h e r  s u p p o r t  o f  t h e  a r g u m e n t  t h a t  t h e  

P l a i n t i f f  may n o t ,  l o n g  a f t e r  t h e  e x p i r a t i o n  o f  a p p l i c a b l e

I t  >f>



limitations, amend the individual Complaint to transform 
it into a class action on behalf of all employees, we 
call the Court's attention to Iocono v. Anastasio, 79 
F. Supp. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1948). As in the instant case, 
the original complaint in Iocono did not intimate that 
Defendants would be required to defend claims or incur 
liability as to anyone except the named Plaintiffs. 
Subsequent to the expiration of the short limitations 
period applicable to the remaining employees. Plaintiffs 
attempted to amend the original complaint to convert 
it into a class action on behalf of other employees 
similarly situated. Judge Medina denied Plaintiffs' 
leave to amend in this manner, reasoning as follows:

"But this action is not a 'collective' 
or 'class' action. The principal purpose 
of pleadings is to notify the defendant by 
whom he is being sued and what the claim is 
about. No one of these numerous defendants 
could possibly have had any reason to suppose 
that any claim was being pressed for alleged 
unpaid overtime compensation by any of the 
one hundred and thirty persons whose 'consents' 
were later filed.

*  *  *

"Here defendants had no notice what
ever that any claim was made by or on behalf 
of the one hundred and thirty individual 
claimants, until after their claims had been 
outlawed by the running of the short statute 
contained in the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

"True it is that the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 
723c, contemplate that amendments be liberally 
allowed in the interest of justice. But there 
must be an existing pending action by or on 
behalf of the person seeking the amendment.
It will not suffice that someone else has a 
pending lawsuit against the defendant sought to be charged, in which similar but nevertheless 
different and separate claims are alleged, and 
that through some ignorance or excusable neglect reference to the person seeking to 
intervene and to his separate and individual 
claim was wholly omitted. No amount of good



excuses or equitable considerations of one 
sort or another can alter the fact that there 
is not now pendi y  anv action whatever by or 
on behalf of these individual claimants. 
Accordingly, the relief prayed for must be 
withheld. To hole' otherwise would be to 
dispense with the most elementary requirements 
o' due process." 70 F. Pupp., at 381-82.
I : is clear from he above that Plaintiff herein

should net be allowed to use the device of amendment to 
cleverly sic estep limitations as to the new parties 
Plaintiff.

Defendant Southern Pacific Companv, on the grounds
set forth in Union's Answer and based on the additional 
authority referenced above, respectfully submits that the 
proposed aneilment would graetly prejudice Defendants and 
should be denied.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully submitted

'. P., Burch, Jr. <r̂ j.
"ichard R. Brann 
1800 Esperson Building 
iouston, Texas 77002
attorneys for Defendant 
Southern Pacific Company

OF COUNSEL:
BAKER, BOTTS,

SHEPHERD ’ COATES 
Houston. Texas 77002

iGS



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing
Defendant Southern Pacific Company's Answer in Opposition 
to Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint has 
been served on the Plaintiff by mailing a copy of the same 
to his attorney of record, Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald,
McDonald & McDonald, 1834 Southmore Boulevard, Houston,
Texas 77004, on this 24th day of April, 1970. I have 
also mailed copies of such Answer to Mr. James L. Highsaw,
Jr., 631 Tower Building, Washington, D. C. 20004; Mr. Curtis 
Brown, Brown, Kronzer, Abraham, Watkins & Steely, 500 Houston 
First Savings Building, Houston, Texas 77002; and Mr. William 
J. Donlon, General Counsel, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 
& Steamship Clerks, 6300 River Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018.

V . -----------
Richard R. Brann

4

469
■/ / «-



IN  T H E  U N IT E D  S T A T E S  D IS T R IC T  C O U R T

FO R  T H E  SO U T H E R N  

H OU STO N

H EN R Y  B R A D L E Y ,
P la in t i f f ,

SO U T H E R N  P A C IF IC  C O M PA N Y , IN C .
A ND  B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A ILW A Y ,
A IR L IN E , A ND  S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,
F R E IG H T  H A N D L E R S , E X P R E S S  AND 
ST A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S , L O C A L  589,

D e fe n d a n ts .

M EM O R A N D U M  O F  LAW

P la in t i f f ,  H e n ry  B r a d l e y  h e re w ith  s u b m its  th i s  M e m o ra n d u m  of L aw  

in  r e s p o n s e  to  th e  A n s w e r  o f th e  B ro th e r h o o d  o f R a ilw a y , A ir l in e  & S te a m s h ip  

C le r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d le r s ,  E x p r e s s  & S ta t io n  E m p lo y e e s ,  L o c a l  589 , in  o p 

p o s i t io n  to  M o tio n  of P la in t i f f  to  f i le  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t .

I .

P L A IN T IF F 'S  F IR S T  A M E N D E D  C O M P L A IN T  IS N O T 
B A R R E D  BY T IT L E  VII S T A T U T E  O F  L IM IT A T IO N S

"R a c ia l  d i s c r im in a t io n  i s  b y  d e f in it io n  a  c la s s  d i s 
c r im in a t io n .  If i t  e x i s t s  i t  a p p l i e s  th ro u g h o u t th e  
c l a s s .  T h is  d o e s  n o t m e a n , h o w e v e r ,  th a t  th e  e f 
f e c t s  o f th e  d is c r im in a t io n  w il l  a lw a y s  b e  f e l t  e q u a l
ly  b y  a l l  th e  m e m b e r s  o f th e  r a c i a l  c l a s s .  F o r  e x 
a m p le ,  i f  an  e m p lo y e r ’s  r a c i a l l y  d i s c r im in a to r y  
p r e f e r e n c e s  a r e  m e r e ly  one  o f s e v e r a l  f a c to r s  w h ich  
e n te r  in to  e m p lo y m e n t d e c i s io n s ,  th e  u n la w fu l p r e 
f e r e n c e s  m a y  o r  m a y  n o t b e  c o n tr o l l in g  in  r e g a r d  to  
th e  h i r in g  o r  p ro m o tio n  o f a  p a r t i c u l a r  m e m b e r  of 
th e  r a c i a l  c l a s s .  B u t a lth o u g h  th e  a c tu a l  e f f e c ts  o f 
a d i s c r im in a t o r y  p o lic y  m a y  th u s  v a ry  th ro u g h o u t 
th e  c l a s s ,  th e  e x is te n c e  of th e  d i s c r im in a t o r y  p o lic y  
t h r e a te n s  th e  e n t i r e  c l a s s .  A nd  w h e th e r  th e  D a m o c le a n  
th r e a t  o f  a  r a c i a l l y  d i s c r im in a t o r y  p o lic y  h a n g s  o v e r  
th e  r a c i a l  c l a s s  i s  a  q u e s t io n  o f f a c t  co m m o n  to  a l l  
m e m b e r s  o f th e  c l a s s .  " H a ll v. W e rth a n  B a g  C o r p . ,
53 LC  JI9014 (M .D . T e n n . M a r .  3 , 1966) ( e m p h a s is  
s u p p lie d )

So h e ld  a D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,  p e r m it t in g  an  e m p lo y e e  to  in te r v e n e  a s  a n a m e d  

p la in t i f f  in  a T it le  VII a c t io n  w ith o u t f i r s t  h a v in g  to  f ile  a charge w ith th e  E qual 

E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity  C o m m is s io n .  T h e  d e fe n d a n t u n io n  c o n te n d s  in  i t s  

a n s w e r  th a t  th e  p la in t i f f  b y  a m e n d in g  h is  c o m p la in t  to  s p e c ify  th a t  th e  s u i t  is  

b ro u g h t a s  a c l a s s  a c t io n ,  i s  a l le g in g  a  new  c a u s e  o f a c tio n  b a r r e d  b y  th e  th i r t y

D IS T R IC T  O F  CCERKA8. S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF. TEXAS
D IVISION  F I L E D

) APR 2 4

J y. BAILEY IHpMAS. CLERK ,j BY. OEPUIYl ' ‘

)
) C IV IL  A C T IO N  N O . 68-H-1079 
)
)
)
)

4 * i t



( 2 )

CiO) d a y  statute.' o f l im i ta t io n s  s o t  fo r th  in T i t le  VII. P la in t i f f  s u b m it s  th a t 

th i s  i s  an  e r r o n e o u s  c o n te n t io n  f o r  a  n ew  c a u s e  o f a c tio n  h a s  n o t b e e n  a l le g e d  

an d  ev en  a s s u m in g  a rg u e n d o  th a t  th e  r e q u e s t  f o r  r e l i e f  f o r  th e  c la s s  i s  a  new  

c a u s e  of a c t io n , i t  i s  n o t b a r r e d  b y  th e  s t a tu t e  o f l im i ta t io n s .

T h e  U n ited  S ta te s  C o u r t  o f A p p e a ls  fo r  th e  F if th  C i r c u i t  h a s  re c o g n iz e d

th a t a  T it le  VII s u i t  a l le g in g  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  in  e m p lo y m e n t i s  m o r e  th a n

s im p ly  a  p r iv a te  c la im  s e e k in g  p e r s o n a l  r e l i e f  o n ly .

' T he  s u i t  i s  th e r e f o r e  m o r e  th a n  a  p r iv a te  c la im  b y  
th e  e m p lo y e e  s e e k in g  th e  p a r t i c u l a r  job  w h ich  i s  a t  
th e  b o tto m  o f  th e  c h a rg e  o f u n la w fu l d i s c r im in a t io n  
f i le d  w ith  E E O C . . . . W h e th e r  in  n a m e  o r  n o t, 
th e  s u i t  i s  p e r f o r c e  a  s o r t  o f  c l a s s  a c tio n  fo r  fe llo w  
e m p lo y e e s  s i m i l a r l y  s i tu a te d .  " J e n k in s  v . U n ited  
G as  C o r p . ,  400 F .  2d 28 (5 th  C i r .  196 8 ), 58 LC  
5 9 1 5 4 , p . 6 595 .

T h e  c o u r t  w en t on to  d e s ig n a te  th e  p la in t i f f  in  su c h  a  s u i t  a s  a  " p r iv a te  A tto rn e y  

G e n e r a l" .

P la in t i f f ’s  c o m p la in t  d e m o n s t r a t e s  th a t  h e  i s  in  f a c t  c o m p la in in g  o f a

s y s te m  o f  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  and  w h e th e r  o r  n o t h e  d e n o m in a te d  h is  f i r s t

c o m p la in t  a  c l a s s  a c t io n  o r  n o t, th i s  c o u r t  s h o u ld  g r a n t  c l a s s - w id e  r e l i e f  i f  i t

f in d s  th a t  th e  d e fe n d a n ts  h a v e  m a in ta in e d  s u c h  a  s y s te m .

" In d e e d , i f  c l a s s - w id e  r e l i e f  w e re  n o t a f fo rd e d  e x 
p r e s s ly  in  a n  in ju n c tio n  o r  d e c l a r a to r y  o r d e r  i s s u e d  
in  E m p lo y e e s  b e h a lf  th e  r e s u l t  w ou ld  b e  th e  in c o n 
g ru o u s  o n e  o f th e  C o u r t  -  F e d e r a l  C o u r t ,  no l e s s  -  
i t s e l f  b e in g  th e  in s t r u m e n t  o f  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n ,  
w h ich  b r in g s  to  m in d  a  r e j e c t i o n  o f l ik e  a rg u m e n ts  
an d  r e s u l t  in  P o t t s  v . F la x ,  F if th  C i r c u i t ,  1963 ,
313 F .  2d 284, 2 8 9 " . J e n k in s  v . U n ited  G a s  C o r p . ,  
s u p r a ,  58 L C  a t  p .6 5 9 8 .

P la in t i f f  th e r e f o r e  i s  n o t r a i s in g  a  new  c a u s e  o f a c t io n  in  h is  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  

C o m p la in t .  T h e  a l le g e d  d is c r im in a t io n  a g a in s t  h im  b e c a u s e  o f h is  r a c e  w as 

m e r e ly  a  s in g le  m a n is f e s ta t io n  o f  a  s y s te m  o f d is c r im in a t io n  w h ich  c a n  on ly  

b e  e l im in a te d  and  w h jch  sh o u ld  b e  e l im in a te d  b y  c l a s s  r e l i e f .

In  T it le  VII a c t io n s ,  m e m b e r s  o f th e  c l a s s ,  a r e  n o t r e q u i r e d  to  c o m p ly  

w ith  th e  s t a tu te  o f l im i ta t io n s  p r e s c r ib i n g  th e  in s t i tu t io n  of a  c iv i l  a c t io n  w ith in  

t h i r t y  (30) d a y s  of r e c e i p t  o f th e  l e t t e r  o f n o t i f ic a t io n  f r o m  E E O C . M e m b e rs  

o f th e  c la s s  r e c e i v e  n o  su c h  l e t t e r s .  In  O a tis  v . C ro w n  Z e l l e r b a c h  C o r p . , 398 

F .  2d 49S (5 th  C i r .  1 9 6 8 ), 58 L C  59140  ( J u ly  16 , 1 9 6 8 ), th e  U n ite d  S ta te s  C o u r t

o f A p p e a ls  fo r  th e  F if th  C i r c u i t  h e ld  th a t  i t  i s  n o t n e c e s s a r y  th a t  m e m b e r s  of



( 3 )

th e  c la s s  f i le  a  c h a rg e  w ith  th e  E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity  C o m m is s io n  a s  

a  p r e r e q u i s i t e  to  jo in in g  a s  c o - p la in t i f f s  in  th e  l i t ig a t io n .  A nd in  M i l l e r  v s .  

I n te rn a t io n a l  P a p e r  C o . ,  408 F .  2d 283 (5 th  C i r .  1969), 59 LC  319211 ( F e b r u a r y  

26 , 1969), th e  C o u r t  h e ld  th a t  m e m b e r s  o f th e  c l a s s ,  n o t n a m e d  p la in t i f f s ,  w e re  

a ls o  n o t r e q u i r e d  to  f i le  a  c h a rg e  w ith  th e  E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity  C o m 

m is s io n .  T h e r e f o r e  i t  i s  c l e a r  th a t  a  r e q u e s t  f o r  c l a s s  r e l i e f  i s  n o t a  new  c a u se  

o f  a c tio n  b a r r e d  b y  th e  t h i r t y  (30) d a y  t im e  l im i ta t io n  in  T i t le  V II b e c a u s e  th a t  

t im e  l im i ta t io n  is  n o t a p p lie d  to  m e m b e r s  o f th e  c l a s s .  J a c k s o n  v s .  Id e a l 

P u b lis h in g  C o m p a n y , 274 F .  2d 318 (D .C .  E .D .  P a . ,  1967) r e l i e d  upon  by  th e  

d e fe n d a n t u n io n  is  n o t a p p lic a b le  to  th e  in s ta n t  c a s e ,  fo r  th e  new  i s s u e  so u g h t 

to  l.c r a i s e d  in  th a t  c a s e  w as  n o t a  r e q u e s t  f o r  c l a s s  r e l i e f  an d  w a s  s p e c i f ic a l ly  

b a r r e d  b y  a  s t a t e  s t a tu te  o f l im i ta t io n s .  B e c a u s e  of th a t  s t a te  b a r ,  th e  c o u r t 's  

s t a te m e n t  th a t  th e  a m e n d m e n t w ou ld  n o t h a v e  b e e n  a llo w e d  u n d e r  R u le  15 of 

th e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e  i f  s u c h  a m e n d m e n t h a d  b e e n  r e q u e s te d  a t  

a  e a r l i e r  d a te  i s  m e r e ly  d ic tu m .

P la in t i f f  s u b m its  th a t  th i s  C o u r t  sh o u ld  r e j e c t  th e  d e fe n d a n t u n io n 's  

c o n te n t io n  th a t  th e  p la in t i f f  no  lo n g e r  h a s  a n  i n t e r e s t  in  th e  s u i t  b e c a u s e  he  h a s  

r e t i r e d .  T he  m o s t  o b v io u s  r e a s o n  i s  th a t  p la in t i f f  h a s  r e q u e s te d  b a c k  p a y  lo s t  

a s  a  r e s u l t  o f  th e  d e fe n d a n ts ' p o lic y  an d  p r a c t i c e  o f r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  in  

e m p lo y m e n t.  T h e  U n ite d  S ta te s  C o u r t  o f A p p e a ls  fo r  th e  F if th  C i r c u i t  in  

J e n k in s  v s .  U n ite d  G a s  C o r p o r a t io n ,  s u p r a ,  r e j e c te d  a  c o n te n t io n  th a t  the  

a c t io n  w a s  r e n d e r e d  m o o t b e c a u s e  th e  p la in t i f f  h ad  r e c e iv e d  th e  p ro m o tio n  w hich  

h e  h a d  c o n te n d e d  w a s  d e n ie d  h im  b e c a u s e  o f h is  r a c e .  B e c a u s e ,  i n t e r  a l i a ,  th e  

p la in t i f f  w a s  a l s o  s e e k in g  b a c k  p a y  b e c a u s e  o f th i s  d i s c r im in a t io n .  E v e n  w ith 

o u t th i s  c la im  fo r  b a c k  p ay  p la in t i f f  h a s  s u f f ic ie n t  i n t e r e s t  to  m a in ta in  th is  

la w s u i t .  In C a r r  v s .  C o n o co  P la s t i c s  I n c . ,  62 L C  J9391  (5 th  C i r .  J a n u a r y  29 , 

1970), th e  C o u r t  a f f i r m e d  th e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t 's  h o ld in g  th a t  a n  a p p l ic a n t  fo r  

e m p lo y m e n t co u ld  r e p r e s e n t  in  a  c l a s s  a c tio n  p e r s o n s  w ho w e re  a l r e a d y  e m 

p lo y e d . T h is  w a s  a l s o  a  T i t le  VII a c t io n  a l le g in g  r a c i a l  d i s c r im in a t io n  in  e m 

p lo y m e n t.  E a r l i e r  in  Jo h n s o n  v s .  G e o rg ia  H ig h w ay  E x p r e s s ,  I n c . ,  417 F .  2d 

1122 (5 th  C i r .  1969) 61 LC  J9 3 5 5  (O c to b e r  3 0 , 1969), i t  h ad  b e e n  h e ld  th a t  a  

p e r s o n  no  lo n g e r  in  th e  e m p lo y  o f a  d e fe n d a n t c o u ld  p r o p e r ly  m a in ta in  a  T it le  

VII a c tio n  in  h is  b e h a lf  an d  in  b e h a lf  o f p e r s o n s  w ho w e re  s t i l l  e m p lo y e d  b y

th a t  d e fe n d a n t . 463



K o r a ll th e  fo r e g o in g  r e a s o n s ,  p la in t i f f  s u b m it s  th a t  h is  F i r s t  A m en d ed  

C o m p la in t  is  n o t b a r r e d  by T it le  VII s t a tu t e  o f  l im i ta t io n s  and  th a t  In' s t i l l  h a s  

s u f f ic ie n t  i n t e r e s t  in  th i s  la w s u i t  to  m a in ta in  th i s  a c t io n  in  h is  b e h a lf  an d  in  

b e h a lf  o f th e  c la s s  o f p e r s o n s  h e  s e e k s  to  r e p r e s e n t .

II .

F E D E R A L  R U L E S  O F  C IV IL  P R O C E D U R E  DO N O T P R O H IB IT  T H E
F IL IN G  O F  P L A IN T IF F 'S  F IR S T  A M E N D E D  C O M P L A IN T  A T  THIS

D A T E

A s th e  d e fe n d a n t h a s  a d m i t te d ,  th e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e  

p ro v id e  f o r  l i b e r a l i t y  w ith  r e s p e c t  to  a m e n d m e n ts  to  c o m p la in ts .  T h e  l i m i t a 

tio n  th a t  an  a m e n d m e n t m a y  n o t " s u b s ta n t ia l ly  c h a n g e "  th e  c a u s e  o f a c t io n  o r  

d e fe n s e ,  o r  in t ro d u c e  a  d i f f e r e n t  c la im  o r  d e fe n s e  h a s  n o t b e e n  o b s e r v e d  u n d e r  

R u le  15 o f th e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e .  M o o r e 's  F e d e r a l  P r a c t i c e ,  

S eco n d  E d it io n , V o lu m e  3, p .  8 7 7 ,8 7 8  c it in g  I n te r n a t io n a l  L a d ie s '  G a rm e n t  

W o r k e r s '  U n ion  v s .  D o n n e lly  G a rm e n t  C o m p a n y , 121 F .  2d 561 (8 th  C i r .  1941) 

w h e re  an  a c tio n  o r ig in a l ly  b ro u g h t  u n d e r  th e  S h e rm a n  A c t w as  h e ld  to  b e  i n 

a p p lic a b le  a n d  s in c e  t h e r e  i s  n o  d iv e r s i t y  o f c i t iz e n s h ip  th e  c o u r t  h e ld  i t  w a s  

w ith o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n  h o w e v e r  on  m o tio n  o f th e  p la in t i f f  th e  a p p e l la te  c o u r t  p e r 

m i t t e d  p la in t i f f  to  f i le  an  a m e n d m e n t d is m is s in g  th e  r e s id e n t  d e fe n d a n ts  and  

r e s t a t i n g  th e  c la im  a s  a  c iv i l  a c tio n  b a s e d  on d iv e r s i t y  o f c i t iz e n s h ip .  C o u r ts  

h a v e  h e ld  th a t  " a  c o m p la in t  in  an  a c tio n  u n d e r  th e  J o n e s  A c t m a y  b e  a m e n d e d  

to  b r in g  th e  a c t io n  a ls o  u n d e r  th e  D ea th  on  th e  H igh  S e a s  A c t; o r  i f  p la in t i f f  

w a n te d  to  f i le  a n  a m e n d e d  c o m p la in t ,  m a y  in c lu d e  a n  a d d it io n a l c a u s e  of a c tio n  

a r i s in g  o u t o f th e  s a m e  t r a n s a c t io n ,  o r  m a y  c h a n g e  th e  c la im  f ro m  one on 

c o n t r a c t  to  one f o r  r e f o r m a t io n  in  e q u ity , o r  to  one in  t o r t .  M o o r e 's  F e d e r a l  

P r a c t i c e ,  s u p r a ,  p p . 8 7 8 ,8 7 9 .

A lth o u g h  th e  o r ig in a l  c o m p la in t  w as  f i le d  on  o r  a b o u t D e c e m b e r  31, 1968 , 

no  d is c o v e r y  h a s  b e e n  in i t i a te d  b v  th e  p la in t i f f .  T h e  p la in t i f f  h im s e l f  w ould  

b e  u n d u ly  p re ju d ic e d  i f  a  m o tio n  f i le d  b u t n o t p r e s e n te d  to  th e  C o u r t  f o r  a  ru l in g  

o v e r  a  y e a r  ag o  c h a lle n g in g  th e  s u f f ic ie n c y  o f h is  c o m p la in t  co u ld  a c t  a s  a  b a r  

to  th e  f i lin g  of an  a m e n d e d  c o m p la in t .  P la i n t i f f 's  p e r s o n a l  c la im  of d i s c r i m i 

n a tio n  on a c c o u n t o f h is  r a c e  o r  c o lo r  i s  d i r e c t l y  r e l a t e d  to  a  c la im  of d i s c r i -  

m illa tio n  a g a in s t  N e g ro e s  in  g e n e r a l .  A s  a  p a r t  o f i t s  d e fe n s e  to  p la in t i f f 's

4«4



p e r s o n a l  c la im  th e  d e fe n d a n t u n io n  w ill h av e  to  show  th a t  i t  h a s  m a in ta in e d  a

p o lic y  o f n o n - d i s c r im in a t io n .  T h is  d e fe n s e  i s  in  no  w ay  b ro a d e n e d  by  p la in t i f f 's  

F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t .

O n J a n u a r y  16 , 1970 th i s  C o u r t  g r a n te d  a  M o tio n  f o r  S u b s t i tu tio n  o f A t

to r n e y .  P r e s e n t  c o u n s e l  f o r  p la in t i f f  h a s  n o t b e e n  g u il ty  o f u ndue  d e la y , th e  

d e fe n d a n t h a s  n o t c o n te n d e d  n o r  c o u ld  i t  c o n te n d  th a t  p la in t i f f  i s  g u i l ty  o f b ad  

fa i th  o r  d i l a to r y  m o t iv e s ,  th i s  i s  th e  f i r s t  a m e n d e d  c o m p la in t  s o u g h t to  b e  f i le d  

and  th e  d e fe n d a n t h a s  f a i le d  to  show  u n d u e  p r e ju d ic e  b y  v i r tu e  o f th e  a llo w a n c e  

o f th e  a m e n d m e n t.  If th i s  C o u r t  b a la n c e s  th e  e q u i t ie s  the  p la in t i f f  s h o u ld  b e  a l 

lo w ed  to  f i le  h is  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t .

F o r  a l l  th e  fo r e g o in g  r e a s o n s  p la in t i f f  r e s p e c t f u l ly  s u b m its  th a t  th i s  

C o u r t  sh o u ld  g r a n t  h im  le a v e  to  f i le  h is  F i r s t  A m e n d e d  C o m p la in t .

T h is  is  to  c e r t i f y  th a t  th e  u n d e rs ig n e d  h a s  th i s  d ay  s e r v e d  a  co p y  o f th e  

fo r e g o in g  M e m o ra n d u m  of h a w  on M r .  V .R .  B u rc h ,  J r . ,  B a k e r ,  B o t t s ,  

S h e p h e rd  C o a te s ,  M r .  J a m e s  L . H ig h sa w , J r . ,  631 T o w e r  B u ild in g , W a sh 

in g to n , D .C .  2 0 005 , an d  M r .  C u r t i s s  B ro w n , B ro w n , K r o n z e r ,  A b ra h a m , 

W a tk in s  and  S te e ly , 500 H o u s to n  F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u ild in g , H o u s to n , T e x a s  77002, 

b y  m a i l in g  s a m e  to  th e m , a t  t h e i r  a d d r e s s e s ,  p o s ta g e  p r e - p a id  on th i s  th e  

2 4 th  d a y  o f  A p r i l ,  1 9 7 0 .

R e s p e c tf u l ly  s u b m it te d ,

G A B R IE L L E  K . M C D O N A LD  
M ARK T .  M CD O N A LD  
M C D O N A LD  & M C D O N A LD  
1834 S o u th m o re  B o u le v a rd  
H o u s to n , T e x a s  77004

A T T O R N E Y S  FO R  P L A IN T IF F

C E R T IF IC A T E  O F  S E R V IC E

/ G A B R IE L L E  K . M C D O N A LD

*4 is ^ 465 ’ -3̂



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

f i l e d

APR 2 7 1970

HENRY BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,

VS .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY INC. 
AND BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, 
AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 589

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

a *  M e m * :
t

CIVIL ACTION NO. 68-H-1079

CLERK
i’jJ/' /

DEFENDANT SOUTHERN PACIFIC 
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'SCOMPANY'S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW Southern Pacific Company, a Defendant 
in the above-captioned matter, and files this response in 
opposition to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in support of 
Plaintiff's attempt to amend complaint, and for such 
response would say as follows:

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law argues well for 
the general proposition of maintaining class actions in 
suits of this nature. However, Plaintiff's arguments ob
scure the real prejudice to Defendants and consequent 
inequity of allowing this type of expanded class action 
and specific class recovery belatedly attempted by amend
ment. We speak, of course, of the claim for back wages 
and further specific relief for the entire class added by 
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiff's prayer for relief in 
the proposed amended complaint.

The authorities cited in Plaintiff's Memorandum 
all deal with the general propriety of class actions to 
enjoin alleged discriminatory practices or to have such

470



practices declared discriminatory as to a defined class. 
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint goes far beyond 
the propriety of recovery contemplated by the authorities 
cited and attempts to expand the action from an individual 
claim for an injunction, declaratory relief and recovery 
of back wages into a class demand for an injunction, 
declaratory relief and recovery of back wages for all 
in the class. This novel concept of expanded class action, 
while at least arguably sanctioned as to injunctive and 
declaratory relief for the class, has never received 
approval by the authorities Plaintiff cites insofar as 
the recovery of back wages for the entire class is con
cerned. More importantly, this technique is expressly 
prohibited by Judge Medina's well-reasoned opinion in 
Iocona v. Anastasio. 79 F.Supp. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1948).

The equitable considerations dictating the 
disallowance of amendment in Iocona govern the instant 
case. Plaintiff argues in his Memorandum that this has 
been a class action all along, regardless of how it was 
first pled. The argument obviously must fall with respect 
to class recovery of back wages and further specific 
relief. This action has never been a class action for 
purposes of the recovery of back pay for the entire 
class. Prior, to the proposed amendment, Defendants were 
completely without notice of such broad claim. No 
authority sustains allowing the proposed transformation 
at this late date.

For the foregoing reasons, coupled with the 
arguments and authorities contained in both Defendants' 
Answers opposing amendment, Defendant Southern Pacific 
Company submits that the proposed amendment would

- 2 -

471 i /  V v*



greatly prejudice Defendants and consequently should be
denied.

Respectfully submitted,

V. R. Burch, Jr_
Richard R. Brann 
1600 Esperson Building 
Houston, Texas 77002
Attorneys for Defendant 
Southern Pacific Company

OF COUNSEL:
BAKER, BOTTS,

SHEPHERD & COATES 
Houston, Texas 77002

-3-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing
Defendant Southern Pacific Company's Response in Opposition 
to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law has been served on the 
Plaintiff by mailing a copy of the same to his attorney 
of record, Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald, McDonald & McDonald, 
1834 Southmore Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77004, on this 
27th day of April, 1970. I have also mailed copies of 
such Response to Mr. James L. Highsaw, Jr., 631 Tower 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20004; Mr. Curtis Brown, Brown, 
Kronzer, Abraham, Watkins & Steely, 500 Houston First 
Savings Building, Houston, Texas 77002; and Mr. William 
J. Donlon, General Counsel, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 
& Steamship Clerks, 6300 River Road, Rosemont, Illinois 
60018.

V. R. Burch, Jr. 
Richard R. Brann



IN TUK IINITl-:i> STATUS DISTRICT COURT 
FOR Tllli SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

southern district o* 
F I L E D

WAY a  '<:• »/U

HENRY BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v .

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. and 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES, LOCAL 589,

V. BAILEY T.HOMAS, Cl;
BY. OERUT-Y.: ~ ' ~ x '  / / •

<1

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
68-H-1079

Defendants.

REPLY OF DEFENDANT BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION 

EMPLOYES LOCAL 589, TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT 
________OF MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT______________

On May 18, 1970, counsel for the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline 

and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes 

Local Lodge 589, one of the defendants in the above-entitled cause, 

received from counsel for the plaintiff a copy of a letter addressed 

to the Court to which was enclosed a copy of a decision by a District 

Court in the case of Carter v. Holt-Williamson Manufacturing Company 

in support of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. This reply 

is submitted because an examination of that decision shows that it 

is not applicable for the reasons set forth below to the issues 

raised by the defendants in this case with respect to the proposal 

to amend the complaint:

1. The decision in the Carter case does not show the date upon 

which the motion to amend the complaint was filed in relation to the 

original complaint. The defendants have opposed the motion to amend 

the complaint in the present case on the grounds that (a) it was filed 

long after the statute of limitations contained in the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 for the filing of such actions had expired, and (b) the

474 3 /



2

proposed amendment is attempting to change the whole theory of the 

case after the lapse of a long period of time during which plaintiff 

had voluntarily retired from employment by the Southern Pacific Com

pany. The decision in the Carter case does not address itself to 

either one of these issues nor is it apparent from reading the decision 

that either one of these issues were raised in that case. The decision 

in the Carter case was directed to the question of whether or not a 

class action could be brought at all where the complaint before the 

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was limited only to 

the main plaintiff. Defendants have not raised such an issue in their 

opposition to the amendment here involved.

2. The Court in the Carter case, in allowing an amendment to 

the original complaint to create a class action, emphasized that 

"the language of the original complaint sought injunctive relief 

for the rights of the plaintiff 'and others similarly situated'."

In contrast, the complaint in the present case sought only relief 

on behalf of the plaintiff himself.

3. In the Carter case, the named plaintiff, who had been dis

missed from her employment by the defendant company, was seeking 

reinstatement to her employment and continued to do so in the 

amended complaint by which the plaintiff also sought to change to

a class action. In the present case, the plaintiff Bradley volun

tarily retired from employment with the defendant Southern Pacific 

Company on August 1, 1969, as shown by paragraph IV of the proposed 

amended complaint. Such an individual has severed his employment 

relationship with the railroad and does not now have standing to 

seek injunctive relief, which is the primary thrust of the amended 

complaint, so that there is no continuing named individual with 

proper standing to which a class action can attach. The amended 

complaint is clearly a maneuver to bring an independent suit for

475 £**  ̂ aX



3

relief by other individuals who have never filed a complaint with the 

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not simply a means of 

broadening an existing viable complaint on behalf of plaintiff Bradley.

4. If the Carter case is applicable at all it would require a 

denial of the motion to amend the complaint. Although the District 

Court in the Carter case did allow an amended complaint, it narrowed 

the case so that it was limited only to those allegations and issues 

raised before the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by 

the main plaintiff and by the original complaint. As a consequence, 

the named plaintiff obtained reinstatement to employment and back pay.

In the present case, a following of the precedent of the Carter case 

would require a denial of the motion to amend because the named plain

tiff Bradley no longer has any interest in injunctive relief and can

not obtain back pay as an incident thereto because he is not a discharged 

of suspended employee of the Southern Pacific Company, but one who 

voluntarily retired. Moreover, as such a retired employee he has no 

future interest in the operation of the company or of the collective 

bargaining agreement involved. As a consequence, the basic require

ments of a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure of a common right to enforce and common relief to be obtained 

are not present. The so-called class is not similarly situated as 

plaintiff since they appear to be existing employees with a prayer 

directed primarily to future injunctive relief. In contrast, in the 

Carter case the named plaintiff and the class action plaintiffs were 

similarly situated.

Respectfully submitted

0f Counse1:

William J. Donlon, Gen. Counsel 
Bro. of Railway and Airline

Clerks
6300 River Road 
Rosemont, Illinois 60018

J-Ames L. Hi'ghsaw, Jr 
631 Tower Building 
Washington, D. C. 20005

May 18, 1970 Curtiss Brown
500 Houston First Savings Bldg. 
711 Fannon Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorneys for BRAC Local 589

m 476



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Curtiss Brown, do hereby certify that on this the
21st day of May, 1969, a true and correct copy of the above 
and foregoing Reply of Defendant Brotherhood of Railway, Air
line and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and 
Station Employees Local 589, to Plaintiff's Contentions in 
Support of Motion to File Amended Complaint, was forwarded 
by regular United States mail to Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald, 
1834 Southmore, Houston, Texas 77004, attorney of record for 
the Plaintiff, and to Mr. V. R. Burch, Jr., care of Messrs. 
Baker, Botts, Shepherd 6 Coates, Esperson Building, Houston, 
Texas 77002, attorney of record for the Defendant, Southern 
Pacific Company, Inc. Notice was further given that the 
original of this instrument was being filed with the United 
States District Clerk for the Southern District of Texas, 
Houston Division.

Curtiss Brown



MEMORANDUM:

On Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000(e), et seq.). The 

plaintiff is Henry Bradley who at the time of the insti

tution of the suit was an employee of Southern Pacific 

Company, Inc. He sues the employer and the local union 

of which he was a member. He contends that as a Negro 

employee of the defendant in the Mail Room of the defendant 

he was classified as a "Mail Porter"; although it is further 

alleged that he performed clerical duties which would have 

entitled him to a higher salaried position. He contends 

that there was a practice of discrimination against Negro 

employees by classifying them as Mail Porters when they 

should have been classified as "Mail Clerks", which latter 

positions wele primarily irestricted to whites. Apparently, 

he followed the prescribed administrative procedures and 

the action was timely filed here December 31, 1968.

On August 1, 1969, plaintiff was retired from 
his employment with the defendant.

179
- 2 - v



By the amended pleading which he seeks to file, 

plaintiff undertakes to convert the foregoing into a 

class action on behalf of all those who are presently 

employed, have been employed, or in the future may be 

employed by Southern Pacific Company in the following 

departments located in Houston, Texas: Accounting, Freight 

Accounts, Freight Claim, Duplicating, Regional Bureau, 

Houston Collections, Time Keeper, Central Operating, 

Freight Traffic, Chief Engineers and Transportation.

Mindful as I am of the holdings of the Court

of Appeals of this Circuit in Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach

Corp., 398 F.2d 496 (1968), and the cases which follow

it as Jenkins v. United Gas Corporation, 400 F.2d 28 (5th

Cir. 1968) and Miller v. International Paper Company, 408

F.2d 283 (1969), under the peculiar circumstances of this
«

case I feel the amendment is inappropriate and decline 
to allow i t.

In Oatis, a single plaintiff who had followed 

the administrative procedures and complied with the strict

480

S 7< &-3-



limitation periods filed his action alone. He thereafter 

was joined by three individuals who had not so complied, 

and likewise asserted an action on behalf of the class of 

which he was a member. The Court of Appeals in allowing 

the amendment recognized that those individuals who had 

a similar complaint to that of the plaintiff (use by the 

employer of segregated locker rooms) need not go through 

what apparently would be a useless administration procedure 

and could join; and held further that a class action might 

be maintained if (a) the requirements of Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P. 

were met and (b) if the issues to be considered were those 

properly asserted by the original plaintiff in the E.E.O.C. 
charge and in the complaint.

It is for these reasons that I consider the 

present amendment to be deficient. First, the plaintiff 

here since initiation of the action has been retired.

His position as an active employee is no longer the same 

as when the complaint was filed and the action initiated. 

Whether the issues which he may raise, and the relief 

which he may seek are common to those of present or future

IS1

-4-



employees is subject to serious question. There is no

showing that the claims or defenses of Bradley are 

typical of the claims or defenses of the class [(a)(3) of 

Rule 23]. There is further in my mind serious doubt that 

he is a proper party who will fairly and adequately pro

tect the interests of the class [(a)(4) of Rule 23], 

Farther, 1 consider the petition to be too all-inclusive 

in undertaking to represent employees of the various 

other departments. The plaintiff's complaints have to 

do with alleged practices which prevailed in the Mail 

Room, and nowhere else. There is no reason to believe 

that a similar situation prevailed in the various other 

departments of Southern Pacific mentioned above. If 

there be such complaints emanating in the other depart

ments, perhaps they would lend themselves to adjustment
<

before the E.E.O.C., as contemplated by the statute.

While a multiplicity of suits is to be avoided where- 

ever possible, this desirable end should not be used to 

defeat the statutory purpose of providing for adminis

trative measures wherein it is sought to reconcile the

482
_5_ ry*-"



differences which may exist by arbitration and adjust-

ment.

Leave to file the amended complaint is denied.

Clerk will notify counsel.
t v

Done at Houston, Texas this __day of

July, 1970.

United States District Judge
\

i

*
483

- 6 -  £  CCL*



( 2 )

J a m e s  L . H ig h sa w , J r . , E s q .
6 31 T o w e r  B u ild in g  
W a sh in g to n , D .C .  20005

C u r t i s s  B ro w n , E s q .
B ro w n , K r o n z e r ,  A b ra h a m , 
W a tk in s  & S te e ly
500 H o u s to n  F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u ild in g  
711 F a n n in  S t r e e t  
H o u s to n , T e x a s  77002

G A B K 1E L L E  K . M C D O N A LD

485 <ĵ»



I

n,
u  ;

■ !.i  ̂ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
I"OR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 30604
Cf\. Lvtf-icj'i

HENRY BRADLEY,

P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t ,

vs.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, INC., and 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 
NO. 589,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of Texas

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that appellees' motion to dismiss the 

appeal, filed in the above styled and numbered cause, is 

heireby GRANTED.

A true copy
Tofjt I .

Clork, U. f». 0-rart o" A....  . •'•J-Ui Circuit.

c A t i  c  *  /  J a .
Lh I'iH y

New Orleans, Lou .fin.1

ig-.A

488
/r J (3U

7



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
I'OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY 
VS.

SOUTHERN l’ACIFIC COMPANY,INC., AND BROTHERHOOD OF’
railway, airline: and 
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREICIIT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYEES LOCAL 589

ANSWER

10 THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Conics now BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM 
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES 
LOCAL 589, one of the Defendants in the above entitled and 
numbered cause, and hereinafter referred to as need be as 
"Local" or "Brotherhood," and with leave of Court first being 
had to waive its Motion to Dismiss heretofore filed and to 
file this answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, would respectfully 
:;how unto the Court the following:

I .

First Defense
Ihc Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject 

matter of the complaint because Plaintiff has not complied 
with the conditions precedent to his suit required by Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in that:

(aj The charges of alleged discriminating employ
ment practices by Defendant contained in the Complaint 
were not made to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission as required by Section 706 of the Statutes.

charges Plaintiff did file with the FcdcraL

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
1
I

/

CIVII. ACTION NO. 68-11-1079

c r o p

6

ll>) The



Commission on March 27, 1967, were not filed within 
ninety (90) days of the alleged discriminating 
practice of Defendant as required by Section 706(d) 
of the Act.

II.
Second Defense

I he Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject 
matter ol the Complaint because the Federal Equal Employees 
Opportunity Commission did not comply with the requirements 
of Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
which are a condition precedent to any action against your 
Defendant based on such Statute in that:

(a) The charges filed by Plaintiff with the 
Commission on March 27, 1967, were not served upon 
Defendant by the Commission and said Defendant was 
given no opportunity to reply thereto as required 
by Section 706(a).

(b) The Commission never undertook any concilia
tion with the Defendant as required by Section 706(e).

III.
this Dc(endant denies Paragraph 1(a) as alleged in 

Plaintiff's Complaint and denies the jurisdiction of the Court. 
This Defendant says that Plaintiff is retired, that all in
junctive issues are moot and not at issue and that the Court 
docs not have jurisdiction of this cause. Furthermore, this 
Defendant denies Paragraph 1(b) of such Complaint insofar as 
it alleges any violation of the civil rights of the Plaintiff 
by this Defendant or that it is entitled to any relief under 
the so-called "Civil Rights Act of 1964." With respect to 
Paragraph 1(c), this Defendant says that there were no unlawful 
employment practices at any relevant time alleged hereto.

IV.
This Defendant denies Paragraph II of Plaintiff's

Complaint.

- 2 -

524
c



This Defendant denies the allegations contained in 
Paragraph III of Plaintiff's Complaint.

VI.
This Defendant denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph IV of Plaintiff's Complaint.
VII.

Although this Defendant has no present knowledge con
cerning the Plaintiff and his residence since Plaintiff has 
retired, this Defendant assumes that the allegations contained 
In Paragraph V of Plaintiff's Complaint are correct, as they 
were at the last knowledge of this Defendant.

VIII.
As far as Paragraph VI of Plaintiff's Complaint is 

concerned, this Defendant says that with respect to the allega
tions concerning the Southern Pacific Company, Inc., this 
Defendant is lacking in knowledge of the details of such 
allegations other than that the Southern Pacific Company,
Inc., does operate a common carrier for railroad covering a 
large portion of the United States, and certainly operating in 
l lie Houston area. This Defendant is an unincorporated labor 
association, and operates in Houston. Except as above stated, 
the other allegations of Paragraph VI are denied.

IX.
With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 

VII of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Defendant has no knowledge 
concerning the original employment history of the Plaintiff, 
Henry Bradley. This Defendant denies that it had any part in 
the collective bargaining process resulting in any applicable 
agreements relating to the Plaintiff during the time that he 
was employed by the railroad. This local union simply has no 
part whatsoever in this process. In addition, this Defendant 
says that at all times material hereto Plaintiff's job was duly 
rated and compensated for in accordance with its requirements 
and qualifications. This Defendant denies having freezed the



Plaintiff into any seniority pattern at any material times.
This Defendant specifically denies that so-called Group 2 
employees have been Negro. Except as hereinabove admitted, 
the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint in Paragraph Vll 
are denied.

X.
The allegations of Paragraph VIII of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint are denied by this Defendant.
XI.

Third Defense
This Defendant says that the Plaintiff has long 

since retired from the service of the Defendant railroad, 
and that, therefore, all questions of seniority, injunction 
and declaratory judgment are no longer at issue, and as to 
such matters this case is now moot.

XII.
As a result of the Plaintiff's action herein, this 

Defendant has been required to obtain the services of the 
undersigned attorneys, and this Defendant is entitled to 
recover reasonable attorneys' fees under Section 706(k) of 
the Act, 42 U.S.C.A., Section 2000 E-5(k).

XIII.
Fourth Defense

This Defendant Local 589 is not a party to any agree
ment, does not possess and has not exercised any authority to 
negotiate or deal with any agreement setting forth the rules 
and working conditions affecting the employment rights of the 
Plaintiff which are alleged to give rise to a course of conduct 
that deprives, or tends to deprive, Plaintiff of equal employ
ment opportunities that otherwise adversely affect his employee 
status because of his race. Said Defendant Local 589 is not 
authorized to deal with and has not dealt with employees con
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours

-4-

5 ^ 6



or other terms or conditions of employment as set forth 
in Section 701(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000E(d).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Defendant prays 
that Plaintiff take nothing by his suit and that Defendant go 
hence without day with its costs, and have such other and fur
ther relief, including its attorneys' fees, to which it is 
entitled under law, and for general relief.

Respectfully submitted,.
yd

/ 1 / /  / ;  
- t / , -  /  C.„£. 1- ,  - V -

Curtiss Brown
> ■/> i

500 Houston First Savings Bldg. 711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002 Capitol 2-7211

, Jamesv J(. High
--631 Tower Building 
Washington, D. 20005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Curtiss Brown, one of the attorneys of record for the Defendant, Brotherhood 589, in the above entitled and numbered cause, do hereby certify that I have served the above 
and foregoing Answer upon the attorneys for the interested 
parties by handing same to Mrs. Gabrielle McDonald and Mr.V. R. Burch, Jr., on May 10, 1971.

Curtiss Brown
£ '■i



IN T H E  U N IT E D  S T A T E S  D IS T R IC T  C O U R T
Cl.kkK, U. o l-aoiivoi ouoi<i

F O R  T H E  S O U T H E R N  D IS T R IC T  O F  TEXiS§>u THERN D.'SluiCV OF TEXAS
f  i L  t! D

H O U STO N  DIVISION
19/1

HEN RY  B R A D L E Y ,
P la in t i f f ,

VS.

S O U T H E R N  P A C IF IC  C O M P A N Y , IN C . an d  
B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A IL W A Y , A IR L IN E ,
& S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,  F R E I G H T  H A N D L E R S , 
E X P R E S S  an d  S T A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S ,  L O C A L  
589,

D e fe n d a n t s .

M O T IO N  TO JO IN  P A R T Y  D E F E N D A N T  

T O  T H E  SAID H O N O R A B L E  C O U R T :

C O M ES NOW P la i n t i f f  H e n r y  B r a d l e y  b y  and  th r o u g h  h i s  a t t o r n e y s ,  

an d  p u r s u a n t  to  R u le  20 of th e  F e d e r a l  R u l e s  of C iv i l  P r o c e d u r e  f i l e s  t h i s  

M o t io n  to  jo in  a s  a  p a r t y  d e fe n d a n t .  T h e  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R a i lw a y ,  A i r l i n e  & 

S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  S ta t io n  an d  E x p r e s s  E m p l o y e e s  a n d  a s  

g r o u n d s  t h e r e f o r  s t a t e s  th e  fo l low ing :

1. On M a y  10 , 1 9 7 1 ,  D e fe n d a n t  L o c a l  589 f i l e d  i t s  a n s w e r  to  

P l a i n t i f f ' s  C o m p la in t  in  w h ic h  i t  a l l e g e d  th a t  i t  h a s  no p a r t  in  th e  c o l l e c t i v e  

b a r g a i n i n g  p r o c e s s  b u t  f u r t h e r  a l l e g e d  th a t  P l a i n t i f f ' s  job w a s  r a t e d  and  

c o m p e n s a t e d  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w ith  i t s  r e q u i r e m e n t s  an d  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .  In  f a c t ,  

th e  l a b o r  c o n t r a c t  w a s  in  th e  m a i n  n e g o t i a te d  b y  L o c a l  5 8 9 's  I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,  

w h ich  P la in t i f f  now s e e k s  to  jo in  a s  p a r t y  D e fe n d a n t .

2 . P l a i n t i f f  i s  j o in t ly  a s s e r t i n g  a g a i n s t  s a i d  p a r t y  s o u g h t  to  b e  

j o in e d  a s  D e fe n d a n t  h i s  r i g h t s  p r o v i d e d  b y  T i t l e  VII of th e  C iv i l  R ig h t s  A c t  

o f  1 9 6 4 ,  42 U . S . C .  2000e  e t  s e q .  w h ic h  h a v e  b e e n  v io l a te d  b y  s a i d  p a r t y  in  

th e  s a m e  t r a n s a c t i o n ,  o c c u r r e n c e  o r  s e r i e s  o f  t r a n s a c t i o n s  o r  o c c u r r e n c e s  

in w h ich  th e  n a m e d  D e fe n d a n t s  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y ,  In c .  an d  L o c a l  

58!), B r o th e r h o o d  of R a i lw a y ,  A i r l i n e  & S t e a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  

E x p r e s s  and  S ta t io n  E m p l o y e e s ,  h a v e  v io l a te d  s a i d  r i g h t s .

530



2

3. A q u e s t io n  o f  law  o r  f a c t  c o m m o n  to  a l l  t h e s e  D e fe n d a n t s  w il l  

a r i s e  in  t h i s  a c t i o n .

4 .  T h i s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l  U n io n  s o u g h t  to  b e  jo in e d  d o e s  b u s i n e s s  w i th 

in  th e  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  t h i s  C o u r t .

5. P l a i n t i f f  c o n te n d s  t h a t  h e  w a s  d e n ie d  e q u a l  e m p l o y m e n t  o p p o r 

t u n i t i e s  b e c a u s e  o f  h i s  r a c e  o r  c o l o r  in  v io l a t i o n  o f  T i t l e  VII of th e  C iv i l  R ig h t s  

A c t  o f  1964, 42 U . S . C .  § 2 000e  e t  s e q .  b e c a u s e  of i n t e r  a l i a  a s e n i o r i t y  s y s t e m  

n e g o t i a t e d  b y  th e  D e fe n d a n t s  an d  m a d e  a  p a r t  of th e  L a b o r  A g r e e m e n t  b e tw e e n  

D e fe n d a n t s  and  b e c a u s e  th e  job  d u t i e s  h e  p e r f o r m e d  w e r e  n o t  c o r r e c t l y  c l a s s i 

f i e d ,  th u s  r e s u l t i n g  in  a l o s s  in  w a g e s  th e  jo b  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  r a t e s  a r e  n e g o t i a te d  

b y  th e  D e fe n d a n ts  a s  a  p a r t  of i t s  c o l l e c t i v e  b a r g a i n i n g  p r o c e s s .  P l a i n t i f f  c o n 

t e n d s  t h a t  b e c a u s e  of h i s  r a c e  h e  w a s  n o t  p a id  a  w ag e  r a t e  c o m m e n s u r a t e  with 

th e  job d u t i e s  h e  p e r f o r m e d .

th e  L a b o r  A g r e e m e n t  r e f e r r e d  to  in  5 a b o v e ,  h a s  a c t e d  in  c o n c e r t  w i th  th e  D e 

f e n d a n t s  in  th e  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  m a i n t a i n a n c e  an d  a c q u i e s c e n c e  of th e  d i s c r i m i n a 

t o r y  p r a c t i c e s  w h ic h  P l a i n t i f f  in  h i s  C o m p l a in t  a l l e g e d  to  b e  in  v io l a t i o n  of 

T i t l e  VII of th e  C iv i l  R ig h t s  A c t  of 1964 ,  42 U . S . C .  §2000e e t  s e q .

7. T h e  D e fe n d a n t  L o c a l  589 h a s  a c t e d  a s  an  a g e n t  o f  th e  p a r t y  

s o u g h t  to  b e  e n jo in e d .

8 .  B e c a u s e  o f  t h i s  a g e n c y  r e l a t i o n s h i p  an d  b e c a u s e  o f  th e  c lo s e  

i d e n t i t y  of th e  p a r t y  s o u g h t  to  b e  jo in e d  w i th  th e  D e fe n d a n t  L o c a l  589, i t  h a s  

b e e n  s u f f i c i e n t l y  a p p r i s e d  t h a t  th e  p e n d e n c y  o f  P l a i n t i f f ' s  c h a r g e s  an d  c o m 

p la in t  and  w i l l  s u f f e r  no u n d u e  p r e j u d i c e  o r  s u r p r i s e  b y  b e in g  jo in e d  a t  t h i s  

t i m e .

th i s  C o u r t  o r d e r  th e  j o i n d e r  a s  p a r t y  D e fe n d a n t  th e  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R a i lw a y ,  

A i r l i n e  & S te a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  S ta t io n  and  E x p r e s s  E m p l o y e e s .

6 .  T h e  p a r t i e s  s o u g h t  to  b e  j o in e d  b y  v i r t u e  of th e  e x e c u t io n  of

W H E R E F O R E ,  f o r  a l l  th e  fo r e g o in g  r e a s o n s  P l a i n t i f f  p r a y s  th a t

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m i t t e d ,

M cD o n a l d  & M cDo n a l d  
1834 S o u th m o r e  B o u le v a r d  
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77004 
5 2 3 -7 4 2 3

531



3

A T T O R N E Y S  F O R  P L A I N T I F F

N O T IC E  O F  M O T IO N  T O  JO IN  P A R T Y  D E F E N D A N T

TO: M r .  V . R .  B u r c h ,  J r .
B a k e r  & B o t t s  
3000 O ne S h e l l  P l a z a  
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77002 
A t t o r n e y  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  C o m p a n y

M r .  J a m e s  L .  H ig h s a w ,  J r .
631 T o w e r s  B u i ld in g  
W a s h in g to n ,  D . C .  20050

M r .  C u r t i s s  B ro w n
B ro w n ,  K r o n z e r ,  A b r a h a m ,  W a tk in s  & S te e l e y  
500 F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u i ld in g  
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77002 
A t t o r n e y s  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  U n ion

P L E A S E  T A K E  N O T IC E  t h a t  th e  u n d e r s i g n e d  w il l  b r i n g  th e  f o r e 

g o in g  M o t io n  T o  J o i n  P a r t y  D e fe n d a n t  on f o r  h e a r i n g  b e f o r e  t h i s  C o u r t  a t  th e  

U n i ted  S ta t e s  C o u r th o u s e  in  H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  o^-^ 7 ^ 2 y  / 7 , 1971 aX/O '. )

a . m .  o r  a s  s o o n  t h e r e a f t e r  a s  c o u n s e l  c a n  b e  h e a r d .

G A B R IE L L E  K . M cD O N A L D

5 00< j»,<..
7 /



IN T H E  U N IT E D  S T A T E S  D IS T R IC T  C O U R T

F O R  T H E  S O U T H E R N  D IS T R IC T  O F  T E X A S  

H OU STO N  DIVISION

H E N R Y  B R A D L E Y , )
P l a i n t i f f ,  (

)
V S. (

)
S O U T H E R N  P A C IF IC  C O M P A N Y , IN C . an d  ( 
B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A IL W A Y , A IR L IN E  an d  ) 
S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,  F R E I G H T  H A N D L E R S , ( 
E X P R E S S  a n d  S T A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S ,  )
L O C A L  589, (

D e f e n d a n t s .  )

C . A .  N O . 6 8 - H - 1 0 7 9

M EM O R A N D U M  O F  P O IN T S  A ND  A U T H O R IT IE S

In s u p p o r t  of h i s  M o t io n  T o  J o in  P a r t y  D e fe n d a n t ,  P la in t i f f  h e r e w i t h

s u b m i t s  a  M e m o r a n d u m  of P o in t s  an d  A u t h o r i t i e s .

B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A IL W A Y , A IR L IN E  AND 
S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,  F R E I G H T  H A N D L E R S , 
E X P R E S S  an d  ST A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S ,  MAY 
B E  JO IN E D  AS A P A R T Y  D E F E N D A N T  B E 
C A U SE O F  ITS A G E N C Y  R E L A T IO N S H IP  W ITH  
L O C A L  589, B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A ILW A Y , 
A IR L IN E  and  S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,  F R E I G H T  
H A N D L E R S , E X P R E S S  A ND  S T A T IO N  E M 
P L O Y E E S .  ___________________________________

T a y l o r ,  e t  a l  v . A R M C O  S te e l  C o r p o r a t i o n , _ e t  a l ,  60 L C  
JT9266 ( S .D .  T e x .  J u n e  9, 1969);

S o k o lo w sk i  v .  S w ift  & C o m p a n y , 286 F .  Supp 775 (D . M in n .  1968);

B u s h ,  e t  a l  v .  L o n e  S t a r  S te e l  C o m p a n y , e t  a l . ,  E . D .  T e x . ,
C iv i l  A c t io n  N o .  1420 ( M a r c h  12, 1971);

W i l s o n  R o y ,  S r .  v .  J e f f e r s o n  C h e m i c a l  C o . , I n c . ,  a n d L o c a l  
1792 ,  I n t e r n a t i o n a l  A s s o c i a t i o n  of M a c h i n i s t s  and  A e r o s p a c e  
W o r k e r s ,  A F L - C I O ,  E . D .  T e x a s ,  C iv i l  A c t io n  N o .  5891 ( A p r i l  16,

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m i t t e d ,

M cD o n a l d  & M cDo n a l d  
1834 S o u th m o r e  B lv d .  ,  S u i te  203 
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77004

IA b r i e l l e  k . M cDo n a l d

A T T O R N E Y S  FO R  P L A I N T I F F  

C E R T I F I C A T E  O F  S E R V IC E

The u n d e r s i g n e d ,  o ne  o f  th e  P l a i n t i f f ' s  a t t o r n e y s  h e r e b y  c e r t i f i e s

5.33



a

th a t  s h e  h a s  s e r v e d  a  co p y  of th e  fo r e g o in g  M o t io n  w i th  P l a i n t i f f ' s  F i r s t  

A m e n d e d  C o m p l a in t  a n d  M e m o r a n d u m  of P o in t s  and  A u t h o r i t i e s  a t t a c h e d  t h e r e 

to  up o n  V . R .  B u r c h ,  J r . ,  B a k e r ,  B o t t s ,  3000 O ne S h e l l  P l a z a ,  H o u s to n ,

T e x a s  77002 ,  a t t o r n e y  o f  r e c o r d  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  C o m p a n y  and  J a m e s  L .  H ig h s a w ,  

J r . ,  631 T o w e r  B u i ld in g ,  W a s h in g to n ,  D . C .  2005 and  C u r t i s s  B r o w n ,  B ro w n ,  

K r o n z e r ,  A b r a h a m ,  W a tk in s  and  S te e ly ,  500 F i r s t  S a v in g s  B u i ld in g ,  H o u s to n ,  

T e x a s  77002 ,  a t t o r n e y s  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  U n ion  b y  d e p o s i t i n g  s a m e  in  th e  U n ited  

S t a t e s  M a i l ,  p o s t a g e  p r e - p a i d  t h i s  p )  d ay  of i<~ C'<. j ________ , 1971 .

»



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION »' l U o

HENRY BRADLEY, )
)

Plaintiff, )
)

v. )
)

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND )
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, )
AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, )
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND )
STATION EMPLOYES LOCAL 589, )

)
Defendants. )

_____________________________________________ )

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 68-H-1079

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LOCAL 589 OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF 
RAILWAY AND AIRLINE CLERKS AND OF SAID BROTHERHOOD 
OPPOSING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT 

TO JOIN THE BROTHERHOOD AS A PARTY DEFENDANT

Now comes the defendant Local 589 of the Brotherhood of Railway, 

Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station 

Employes (BRAC Local 589) and BRAC to oppose the motion of the plaintiff 

to amend the complaint so as to make BRAC a party defendant. This oppo

sition is based upon the ground that (1) said amendment is untimely and 

would improperly delay the trial and disposition of the complaint, and 

(2) the amended complaint raises serious questions of jurisdiction and 

venue which would make it subject to dismissal.

There is attached hereto a memorandum of points and authorities in 

support of this opposition along with an affidavit of James L. Highsaw, Jr.

Respectfully submitted,

Sines L. HighSaw, Jr./
1015 Eighteenth Street, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036

July 12, 1971

Curtiss Brown
500 Houston First Savings Bldg. 
711 Fannin Street 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorneys for Defendant BRAC Local 589
and Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks

5 3 5



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY, 1
2

Plaintiff, _)
1

v. ) CIVIL ACTION
j NO. 68-H-1079

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND )_
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, 2
AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 2
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 2
STATION EMPLOYES LOCAL 589, 2

2
Defendants. 2

____________________________  )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the answer of the defendant

Local 589 of the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and cf the

said Brotherhood in opposition to the motion of the plaintiff to amend

the complaint to join the Brotherhood as a party defendant upon all

parties to the case by mailing a copy thereof, properly addressed,

with air mail postage prepaid, to counsel for the plaintiff and the

defendant Southern Pacific Company as follows:

Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald
Suite 203 Groves Professional Bldg.
1834 Southmore Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77004

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Mr. V. R. Burch, Jr.
Baker & Botts 
One Shell Plaza 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorney for defendant Southern Pacific Company.

July 12, 1971

'hsaw_ .TrZ'James L. Highsaw, Jr,,
Attorney for Defendant BRAC Local 589 
and Brotherhood of Railway and Airline 
Clerks

5.26



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

HENRY BRADLEY )
)
)
)

Plaintiff
f t )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 68-H-1079

AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS 
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND 
STATION EMPLOYES LOCAL 589,

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND 
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

WASHINGTON )
) ss

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES L, HIGHSAW, JR

JAMES L. HIGHSAW, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and says as

follows:

1. That he is a member of the bars of the state of Tennesee and 

the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit, and of the United States Supreme Court and is 

engaged in the practice of law in an office located at Suite 506,

1015 Eighteenth Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20036; that he is 

the counsel for the defendant BRAC Local 589 in the above-entitled 

case.

2. That he has appeared as counsel for the Brotherhood of Railway 

and Airline Clerks and for various BRAC Locals in numerous cases arising 

under Federal statutes applicable to the labor-management relationships 

in the railroad field and is familiar with the organization, structure 

and operation of the Brotherhood.

'H  •-



C H A R G E  O F  DISCRIMINATION
i' \ u, have .i t ompi.nnl. till m tins form and mail il to the Crju.il 1 'W '1' Oi'fxirluniiy Commission’s Regional Office ,n yoor .m y

.1'  >oon .is possible. Il musl he mailed within 90 days after the i/C 
criminatory act took place. (See addresses on hack page) /O'

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

1 'im.r Name__
Street Address. 
C i ty ___________

Henry H. Bradley 
_!»305 TUlane Street 
Houston

. ■ Tprnv̂ s to be used only to file a charge of discrimmahon oas
^-orrRAC£nCQU)R, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

RECEIVE ■ ... w A  \ -i > i o -,\ Case file N o . tJ 7- ! Y '
A-jmizQmo,.]________a /g,-r

-  w /yt r-rrtre—  i. ___________ rn n n o  iv n m h o r ^^
RGGiOKAi. O.TiCL !'f

-------- A U tr r m ------------
^____ rc .o c  /

Texa o - >
•Sal::

-.Phone Number.

— Zip Code.
2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)

Race or Color [?§ Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

3 ^  ^  ,he empi° ye' ’ ,lb0f ° 'g' m“ l'° n' and/or .. ,e n ,.c e
Name___

irtclh.in one. list all,
tSouthom Pacific Railroad Company

street Address - 
Cny _
AND (olhe

^Southern.Pacific BoHdin/;. 
Houston St.lie. _Texa3_

or part.es if any)— Bortherhood of Railway .Steamahip_Clerka____
_____Bettea Building, Houston, Texas Local SftQ

-Zip Code_

---------------------------------------------- ------------- ------ ---------------

Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes □  No □
--------------- -

It your cnarge is against a company or a union, how many employees or meml>ers?
—------------ Number Oo not know- Cl

The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month F e b r u a ry  n^y —a -----------------Year . l d f.7
txp.jm  what unfair thing was done to you

—  — ■ _r ■ «*<*j_*. * q o tno cwuhiitui. raciiic riUAXuing ior
more than ten ye&ra. All of my work io that of amnil clr*rk~for the cowparv.
I h a v e  appealed to th o’ company and the u r.J~n to charge my classification from

porter to mail clerk. Both the company and the union~have~i/stored- 
"my 4pp«sl to chsnge my-classiflcation;— T-feel-tharirr-vas^no-t’a-Negro-Triy-— 4nK—A1 n oi r*4 ̂ 4 a r. a 4 a— . . —a .. T a _ 1 . A , , ■ ■ . — .- - -o- —v ---- — VAA.W... ± i t-ei u ia i  a i  i  waa n o t  a riegro r y —
job-clasoification-would -be -change-from -portor-to head malL-clork-siM^—there 

-are two-othor-morv working—with mo—who-arc-cal a sifted aa porterw,_________

swcur^or alarm that I have read the above charge apd th.it it is tru... . 7 ,h*‘l “ , s ‘ri>“ ol mV knowledge. information and belief.
^  - ? 2 ___U fa ? .  . / /  t  . f y /  i .

Subscribed and sworn tp before me th.s
r \  > > r.

£  X t f /  & . /

5 . ? 9



E O U A L  E M P L O Y M E N T  O P P O R T U N IT Y  C O M M IS S IO N  
R E G I O N A L  O F F I C E  

300 C e»H STREET 
AUSTIN. TEXAS 76701

Amt a C oo t  476-661

M r .  H en ry  B rad ley  
4305 T u lan d  S t r e e t  
H o u s t o n ,  T e x a s  77018

Re: A U 7 - 3 - 1 8 3 / 1 83U
S o u th e rn  P a c i f i c  R a i lw ay  Co 
a n d  B ro therhood  of R a i lw ay  
a n d  S te a m s h i p  C l e r k s ,  . . .  
L o ca l  N o .  589

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE_
WTTHIN 30 DAYS

P u rs u a n t  to  S e c t i o n  706 (e) of T i t le  VII of th e  C iv i l  R igh ts  Act 

1 9 6 4 .  you  a r e  h e re b y  n o t i f i e d  t h a t  y o u  m ay w i th in  th i r ty  (30) d a y s  

of r e c e i p t  of t h i s  c o m m u n ic a t io n ,  i n s t i t u t e  a c iv i l  a c t i o n  in  th e  

a p p r o p r ia t e  F e d e ra l  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t .  If  y ou  a re  u n a b le  to  r e t a i n  a n  

a t t o r n e y ,  th e  F e a e r a l  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  i s  a u th o r i z e d  in  i t s  d i s c r e t i o n  

to  a p p o in t  a n  a t t o r n e y  to  r e p r e s e n t  y ou  a n d  to  a u th o r i z e  c o m m e n c e m e n t  

of th e  s u i t  w i th o u t  p ay m e n t  of f e e s ,  c o s t s  or s e c u r i t y .  If y o u  d e c i d e  

to  i n s t i t u t e  s u i t  a n d  f in d  y o u  n e e d  a s s i s t a n c e ,  y o u  may ta k e  t h i s  

n o t i c e ,  a lo n g  w i th  a n y  c o r r e s p o n d e n c e  y o u  h a v e  r e c e i v e d  from th e  

C o m m is s io n ,  to  th e  C le rk  of tn e  F e d e r a l  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  n e a r e s t  to  

th e  p l a c e  w h e re  th e  a l l e g e d  d i s c r im in a t io n  o c c u r r e d ,  a n a  r e q u e s t  t n a t  

a  F e d e ra l  D i s t r i c t  Ju d g e  a p p o in t  c o u n s e l  to  r e p r e s e n t  y o u .
/

j < l 'JyLtL'ci-Ujs______ iLCL
Lee G .  y f i l l i a m s  
R eg io n a l  D i r e c to r

c c  M r. S .  N orm an S o r r e l l , A tto rney  
S e v e n th  F lo o r  S o u th  C o a s t  B u ild ing  
M a in  a t  R usk  S t r e e t  
H o u s t o n ,  T e x a s  77002

D e c e m b e r  2 ,  1968 
Date

F  •Z

540



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION
4

3 HENRY H. BRADLEY
*  V S . CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 68-H-1079SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, et al

8

9

10 BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 18th
1 1  d a y  o f  August, 1971, et seq., the above-entitled
1 2  m a t t e r  came on for trial, without the intervention
1 3  o f  a  jury, before the Honorable Ben C. Connally,
1 4  U n i t e d  States District Judge, and the following

I
15 j proceedings were had:

I hereby certify that the oral
1 7 proceedings were reduced to writing by me in machine
1 8  I shorthand and were thereafter placed into typewritten
19 form under my direction, and that the following is a
20 full, true and correct transcript of my stenotype
2 1 n o t e s .

Houston, Texas 77002
V O L  / rtf W

&  0 < * ^



I

ry4*

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 ?

1 3

1 4

1 S
18

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

Name
INDEX OF WITNESSES

For the Plaintiff

i

Page

HENRY H. BRADLEY
Direct Examination by Ms. McDonald -
By the Court -----------------------
Direct Examination (Cont'd.) ------
Cross Examination by Mr. Burch ----
By the Court -----------------------
Cross Examination (Cont'd.) -------
By the Court -----------------------
Cross Examination (Cont'd.) -------
Cross Examination by Mr. Highsaw --
Redirect Examination by Ms. McDonald
By the Court -----------------------
Recross Examination by Mr. Burch --

W. B. DEESE
Direct Examination by Ms. McDonald -
Cross Examination by Mr. Burch ----
Cross Examination by Mr. Highsaw --
Redirect Examination by Ms. McDonald

ANDREW M. DOTSON
Direct Examination by Ms. McDonald -
By the Court -----------------------
Cross Examination by Mr. Burch -----

10
50
51 
76
84
85 
90 
93
105
115
1 2 0
128

143
160 I
163
168

169
175 ,
176 i

RENFRO MOODY
Direct Examination by Ms. McDonald------  178
Cross Examination by Mr. Burch-----------  183
Cross Examination by Mr. Highsaw---------  191
Redirect Examination by Ms. McDonald ----  193

ERNEST JOHN MACKEY
Direct Examination by Ms. McDonald ------  194
Cross Examination by Mr. Burch-----------  197

Plaintiff rests -----------  199

✓ /  a .



i
**L.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 r>

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

2 2

2 3

INDEX OF WITNESSES (Cont’d.)
j Name

For Defendant Railroad
BRIAN W. ADAMS

Direct Examination by Mr. Burch -
By the Court --------------------
Cross Examination by Ms. McDonald 
Redirect Examination by Mr. Burch 
Cross Examination by Mr. Highsaw

A. J. MOORE
Direct Examination by Mr. Burch ---------
Cross Examination by Ms. McDonald -------

Defendant Railroad Rests —

For Defendant Union
P. J. GIBSON

Direct Examination by Mr. Highsaw —  
Cross Examination by Ms. McDonald —  
Redirect Examination by Mr. Highsaw 
Recross Examination by Ms. McDonald

L. M. GREATER
Direct Examination by Mr. Highsaw--
Cross Examination by Ms. McDonald —  
Redirect Examination by Mr. Highsaw

Defendant Union Rests

v*>



1

3

4

5

6

7

8  

9

1 0  

1 1

1 2  !

i
1 3  I

:
1 4  1

1 3
I

1 6  j

1 7  !

19

20
i

21

■> 7

2 3

24
23

a p p e a r a n c e s

For the Plaintiff:
Gabrielle McDonald and 
Mark McDonald 
1834 Southmore 
Houston, Texas

For the Defendant Union:
James L. Highsaw 
Washington, D. C.
J. Curtis Brown 
Houston, Texas

For the Defendant Southern Pacific Railroad Company:
Reagan Burch and 
Richard Brann 
Houston, Texas



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 8

18

1 9

2 0

2 1

22

2 3

24
2  s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  3
P R O C E E D I N G S

August 18, 1971
i

THE COURT: We have Civil Action
i

68-H-1079, Bradley against the Southern Pacific 
and others. Are we ready?

MS. McDONALD: Ready.
MR. BURCH: Ready for the Railroad. 
MR. BROWN: Defendant Local is

ready. Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to tell 
me what you expect to prove, please, Ms. McDonald?

Ms. McDonald: First, let me tell
j

you a little about the action. This is a Title VII 
action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It was filed by Mr. Bradley on December 31, 1968. In 
his complaint, Mr. Bradley is alleging first of all 
that he was classified as a mail porter, although he 
did not do porter duties. He is also alleging that 
he was head of the mail room. He is alleging that 
he wa s  not paid commensurate to the duties that he 
per f o r m e d  as a mail porter and head of the mail room.
He is also alleging that the seniority system which 
in January of 1966 for the first time permitted mail 
p o r ters in the mail room the opportunity to transfer

8



i

3

4

5
6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

i v

2  !

22
23

24

to what was called, or what was called Group 1, which 
is essentially a grouping of clerical employees of 
Southern Pacific; that this system for the first time 
permitted him to transfer over and denied him equal 
employment opportunities because it did not give him 
the opportunity to use all of his accumulated seniority! 
for promotion purposes. Instead, he was given a 
seniority date of January 1st, 1966 which was the day 
that this system was instituted.

Now, we intend to prove first of 
all that Mr. Bradley was not performing porter duties.

j
I would like to read to the Court just a very short 
definition, according to Webster’s Dictionary, of what 
a porter is. Webster’s Dictionary says that a porter 
is an, and I am quoting, a person who carries things,

j especially a man who carries luggage for hire or as
i an attendant at a railroad station, hotel, et cetera. 
Two, a man who sweeps, cleans, does errands and so 
forth in a bank, store, restaurant. Three, a railroad 
employee who waits on passengers in a parlor car or
sleeper. There is a fourth definition that refers to

.

a type of beer, but in any case, we will show that 
Mr. Bradley did not do any of the duties that are 
normally ascribed to a porter.

We will show also that Mr. Bradley

i  4  <*-■



1
X

7

3

4

5

6

7
8

9

1C

11

12

13

14
i c

1 7

18

19

2 0

2 1

22

2_>

24
25

_____________ ____________________________________________5
was head of the mail room, that he supervised all of
the employees under him, that he was responsible for
teaching the employees how to perform their job.

Thirdly, we will show that there
I

are several clerk jobs classified at Southern Pacific 
that are paid more than mail porter and more than 
Mr. Bradley himself received as head of the mail room.

We will also show that the 
seniority system which in January of 1956 permitted 
Mr. Bradley as a mail porter to transfer over to the 
clerical jobs is unlawful under Title VII, because 
it conditioned promotion on a type of seniority that 
was denied him because of his race. That was seniority I 
in Group 1.

I think we need to make clear to 
the Court that we are talking about more than just 
the name of the job. We are not arguing over whether 
it was called porter or clerk. What we are saying 
is because he was called porter he was denied oppor
tunity to get in the clerical grouping and to promote 
to the higher job classifications.

iJust one point, I wanted to bring 
out to the Court, on the question of liability. I 
would think that it would be better to decide the 
question of liability first because the method of



calculating his exact amount of damages can be done 
very easily, because we intend to introduce the wage 
rates. Mr. Bradley has done this for one of the 
clerical jobs, but has not done it for all of the 
clerical jobs.

Secondly, on his attorney fees, 
in his complaint he asks for attorneys’ fees. I 
don’t think it is proper to burden the Court in trying !

II

to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees, and again 
I would like to ask the Court to wait until it decides 
liability and then permit me to file a motion for 
attorneys’ fees.

THE COURT: I have no objection to 
taking up damages and attorneys’ fees later. That is 
agreeable with you all, is it not?

MR. BURCH: I certainly agree with
Your Honor.

THE COURT: That is fine. Do you 
wish to make a statement of your position now or do 
it later?

MR. BURCH: If I might, I would 
like to make a brief statement at this time.

Ve think that it would be well to 
review where a case stands procedurally at this time. 
This is not a cross action, this is an action by an



8

9

10

li

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 3

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9
|

2  1

22

2 3

individual, and an individual who has retired.
Mr. B r adley retired from Southern Pacific July 31 of 

1969. We do not think that any issue concerning the 

s e n i o r i t y  systems or any other aspect of the case that j 

go beyond Mr. Bradley’s situation are relevant or 

involved in the case at this time.
We think the evidence will show 

that Mr. B r a d l e y  was employed on a job for many years 
that had the title of mail room porter, that he had 
c e r t a i n  responsibilities in effect as a lead man, but j 

that he was not a supervisor in the normal sense.
Now, we don't agree that the 

W e b s t e r  Dictionary definition of porter is anywhere 
relevant to this case. The Court undoubtedly knows 
in the railroad industry there is a great deal of 

cu s t o m  and practice in the employee and labor relations:. 
The title porter has a well defined meaning, I think, 
in the railroad industry, and it has been applied for 
many years to the type of job Mr. Bradley had in 
handling mail.

Mr. Bradley did not wait on 
customers or carry luggage, but he did perform a 
function which is historically porter by style.

We deny that the seniority that
was in effect was d i s criminatory. W e  d e n y  he wa s  not



I

7

3

4

5

6

7
8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 8

\e>

1
A. L

1 8

1 9

2 0

21

2 2

24
/  *>

8
given the opportunity to bid out, and one of the 
reasons is that Mr. Bradley chose not to bid out 
of the position he held.

We do not think that the plaintiff 
will be able to show that the duties he performed were 
not adequately compensated. We think that in making 
that contention, the plaintiff is asking this Court to 
perform a function that is not the function of the
Court, and is asking the Court in effect to arbitrate 
an issue over wage rate that properly is left to the 
parties, the company and union, to negotiate or to be 
handled as an arbitration matter.

We do not think that the Court
should be required to try to decide whether or not 
Mr. Bradley’s job was adequately paid.

I think that is really all this 
case boils down to at this point. The contention that 
he should be permitted to stay in his job and not bid 
up to higher paying, better jobs that were available 
to him, rather he says he should have been permitted 
to stay there and draw that rate of pay, and now have 
this Court declare that he should have been paid more 
money.

i
*

I

We think the record will show that 
many Negro employees of Southern Pacific employed in



1

2

3
4
5

6

7
8

9

10

li
12

1 3

1 4

1 3

1 6

17
18
1 9

20

21

2 2

9
jobs comparable to that of Mr. Bradley, or lower paid, 
they have chosen to go on to better paying clerical 
jobs and have done so, and Mr. Bradley could have done 
the same thing.

I would reserve the right to make 
any further remarks at the time we begin our case.

MR. HIGHSAW: I am James Highsaw
and I am appearing for the local union. I have nothing!

:to add to the statements made by counsel for Southern 
Pacific, and we agree with every aspect of that 
statement. I would simply like to add that the 
evidence will also show that Local Lodge 589 had no 
legal responsibility and was not involved in any way 
in the job classification of Mr. Bradley, nor were 
they involved in any way in the seniority status.

I THE COURT: You may call your
first witness.

MR. BURCH: We would like to
invoke the Rule.

THE COURT: All of those appearing 
as witnesses in the courtroom, please stand and be 
sworn at this time.

(Wit nesses sworn.)
THE COURT: The Rule has been

invoked, which means that the witnesses may not remain

VO



1

2

3

4

5

6

8
9

10

11

1 2

13

1 4

l <•

17

18

19

20

2 2

2 3

inside the courtroom while the case is on trial. You 

may not discuss your testimony with anyone except the 
lawyers, and only one witness may be present. Wait 
outside, please, where we can call you.

MS. MCDONALD: Call Mr. Bradley.

HENRY H. BRADLEY,
a w i t n e s s  called for and on behalf of the plaintiff, 
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
f o l l o w s :

DTlfflCT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCDONALD:
—   ...................■■■■■■■ ■

Ij
Q Mr. Bradley, would you state your name for the 

Court, please?
A My name is Henry H. Bradley.
Q And, Mr. Bradley, what is your race?
A Negro.

!

Q What is your educational background?
IA I have a high school education. I have studied 

el e c t r i c a l  engineering and I have studied 
theology and the ministry. I have studied 
public relations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

9 / 4 - '



i Q
i

7
Am

i

A
3 Q

1

4 A
3 Q

6 A
7 Q

8 A
9 Q

10 A

15 Q
1 2

1 3 A
1 4

1 5 Q

1 6 A
1 7  :

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

2 3

2 4

Q

Are you presently employed by Southern Pacific?
No, ma'am, I am not.
Were you ever employed by Southern Pacific?
Yes, ma'am, I was.
When were you first employed, Mr. Bradley?
March 7, 1929.
Now, how were you classified at that time?
I was classified as an engine wiper.

|

Can you tell the Court what were your duties?
J . ! My duties at that time was wiping engines.

Did you perform any other duties while classified
as an engine wiper?

I

While classified as an engine wiper, yes, ma’am,
I did.
What were they?
I worked as an engine wiper for approximately 
one and a half years, and then tjie roundhouse 
foreman, J. S. Flynn, called me to work in the 
office. The roundhouse foreman did this, in 
which the roundhouse foreman, assistant roundhouse

t

foreman, the stenographer and timekeeper, and in 
this office I was to do porter work. But I was 
classified as engine wiper. I did not do any 
duties as an engine wiper at all.
What were some of your duties that you actually

?  JLOL



12
1

2 A
3

1

4 1
i

5

6

7 Q
8 A
9

1 0

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

18
1 9

2 0  i
j

21 .

22

2 3

24

performed?
The duties that I actually performed were not a 
porter. They had another man from the shop come 
and do the porter work, and at that time I was 
doing clerical work in the roundhouse foreman's 
office.
What did you do?
My duties were to -- I assisted the stenographer,
I typed, I shorthanded, I wrote letters for the 
foreman and the assistant foreman. I made forms, 
compiled forms pertaining to the receiving and 
disbursing of oil to the various engines. I was 
a file clerk, and I did various clerical duties. 
And in fact, we had a safe with numerals, and we 
paid the engineers and firemen off from this 
office. And I had access to the safe and I was 
to pay the firemen and engineers their checks.
And I would lock the safe and open it when it 
was necessary. I also performed other clerical 
duties. I would issue out timecards to the 
various employees in the shop, and I would receive 
those timecards at the close of the morning. In 
addition to all of that, I would stamp the cards. 
My file duties were to file all of the reports

25 and everything, and while I was performing my

/ j



1

2

3

4

3
6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

1 4

i 3
1 *

17

18

19

2 0

2  i

2 2

■4 '

2 4

■> -

1 3
duties as file clerk one day, Mr. W. J. Blakney, 
who was the assistant roundhouse foreman and chief! 
clerk says to me, he says, Henry, if you were a 
white boy — " pardon me, I will ask this Honorable 
Court and Judge’s pardon for this statement. But 
he says to me, If you were a white boy, you 
would have a damned good job." So I says, "What 
did you say, Mr. Blakney?" I wanted him to tell 
me the second time so that I would be sure of the 
statement. He says, "If you were a white boy, j 
you would have a damned good job." I said,
"Well, Mr. Blakney, I am performing the duties

i

and why can’t I have it now?" And he shrugged I
his shoulders and said, "You know how it is."
Those were my duties in the office of the 
roundhouse foreman.

Q Now, for what period of time was this,
Mr. Bradley?

A That was -- you mean the years?
Q Yes.
A That was 1927 to 1932.
Q Now, then, where did you go after you left this

job?
A I left that job and were transferred to the

big shop. See, the H and TC shop was located on



i

7
im-

3>
4 Q
5 A
in Q
7 A
8 Q
9 A

1 0

1 1 Q
1 Z

1 3 A
14
1 c

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

y \

2 4

Houston Avenue, and the big shop was Hardy. The 
H and TC shop was discontinued, it was closed and 
everything transferred to the big shop.
How were you classified at the big shop?
I was classified as porter.
How long did you work at the big shop?

!
I worked there until '34.
Where did you go from there?
I was transferred back to —  I was transferred to 
the mail room.
Now, how did you happen to be transferred to the 
mail room?
I was in town looking for a job. I was just 
walking around looking for a job, and I heard 
about one of the employees that was in the mail

!

room losing his mind, and I knew that he could
I

not perform the duties of a mail clerk. That
;

is what they were doing, performing duties of a 
clerk, and I knew that he could not perform 
those duties efficiently under that condition.
So I immediately went to the mail room and talked 
with Mr. King, Mr. C. A.  King, a Negro who was 
head man in the mail room. I asked him about 
being appointed to this job that was held by a 
man named Nick who was on the job. And he said

I S ' * - '



15
1
'J

3

4 Q
5
6 A
i Q
8 A
9 Q
10

11 A
12 Q
13 A
14

15
16

17
18 Q
i y

20 A
2 \ Q

22 A
2 3 Q

24
2- *> A

that he would like to have me in this position.
He referred me to Mr. C. S. Markham, who was 
manager of the Duplicating Bureau.
And then were you employed in the mail room, 
were you accepted?
I was employed in the mail room in 1934.
What was the month?
August, 1934.
Now, is this the mail room that you worked in 
until the time that you retired?
It is. Yes, ma’am.
When did you retire?
I retired July 31, 1969. Of course, my retirement; 
was effective August 1st, because I had one 
month vacation and my retirement was effective 
August 1st. But the last date of work was in 
July.
When you came to the mail room in August of 1934,

I

how many persons were employed in that mail room? 
There were four.
Now, what was their race?
Their race was all Negro.
How did you learn how to perform the job as it 
was classified mail porter?
By being instructed by Mr. C. A. King.

Y(.



1

2
3

4

5
t>

7

8
9

10

11

12

1 3

14

1 3

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
•> *

_________________________ ______________________ _ 16
Q Did Mr. Barker, who you mentioned, teach you

any of the duties?
A No, ma’am, he did not.
Q So you learned entirely from Mr. King? |
A Mr. King.

j
Q Now, what were your duties when you first came to 

the mail room in August of 1934 as a mail porter? |
A My duties in August, 1934 was to pigeonhole mail, | 

what they call train mail. I addressed mail and 
pigeonholed mail and then in the afternoon when 
we were closing out, we would tie this mail up 
in bundles and then it would be ready to go to 
the station for dispatch on various trains.

Q Now, who, after the mail was tied up, how would 
it be taken to the trains?

A It was carried to the trains by a man —  one man, 
a man employed by Mr. C. A. King. He paid the 
man himself.

Q Now, you said Mr. King employed a man to carry 
the bundles to the train station?

A Yes, ma’am, he did. Mr. King had a contract with 
the company to haul all of the mail to and from 
the building. At that particular time he was 
using a truck.

Q Now, how was this man classified who was carrying

47*-'



1

7«-

3

4

5

6
/

8
9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

1 6

17

18

19

2 0

21

7 7L>

2 3

2 4

1 7
the bundles of mail?

A He was not classified.
Q He was not employed by Southern Pacific?
A He was not employed by Southern Pacific in nowise.;
Q So, did you do any carrying of mail at all?
A No, ma’am, I did not.
Q Now, did you have any other duties besides pigeon

holing mail?
A My other duties were just to address mail, stamp 

mail, put postage stamps on the mail.
Q How long did Mr. King continue to work for 

Southern Pacific?
A He continued until August, 1944.
Q What happened then in August of 1944?
A August, 1944 I asked to be appointed to that job

as head man. They told me whoever would be
appointed to the job would have to know it.
Now, there was another man who had five years’
seniority on me at the time. Now, this man who
is now deceased did not know the whole job.

; 1 

What I mean to say, did not know everything about
the job, that is all of the boards, didn’t know
all of the work and conditions that would be
performed by each person in the mail room. So,
fortunately, during my time as working on the

f i * - *



1 8

1

2 i
3

4
5

6
7

Q

8 i A
9

1 0

11

12

1 3 A
14 i(
15 Q
1 6  !

, 7  | a 
1 8  I Q

1 9  j

20 A

22
2 3  Q

training board, during my leisure time I would 
assist on the other boards, helping, learning, 
trying to learn the work. And I would also assist 
Mr. King in weighing the mail for the proper 
postage to be applied.
Now, did you take over Mr. King’s position after
he retired?
Yes, ma’am, I did.
Did you have any conversation with Mr. Markham 
concerning your taking over Mr. King’s position? 
Yes, ma’am, I did.
What was that conversation?
Mr. Markham appointed me as head man in the mail 
room.
Was your rate any higher than the.other mail 
porters once you took over Mr. King’s job?
Yes, ma’am, it was.
Do you know approximately how much more you 
received than the other mail porters?
It was approximately thirty dollars per month, 
somewhere in that neighborhood. Approximately 
thirty dollars a month.
Who was Mr. Markham, what position did he hold? 
Mr. Markham was manager of the Duplicating 
Bureau, Central Mailing and Duplicating Bureau.

;



1 Q
2

3

4 A
5

6

n(

6

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 8 Q
1 7

1 8 A
1^> Q
20 A
2 I Q

i

2 2  : 

7  <. J

2 4

2 S A

So the Court would have an understanding, the 
Duplicating Bureau has what relationship to the 
mail room?
The Duplicating Bureau consisted of —  there was 
a machine bureau that handled the typewriters, 
adding machines and all of the machine work, and 
print shop, that was the duplicating of printing 
forms, and envelopes and all of the printing, and 
then the mail room. Each department, each one of 
those departments had a head man. The typewriter 
bureau, the head man in that place was Mr. Moore, 
Mr. A. J. Moore. The head man in the printing 
department was and is Mr. Frank Tate. The head 
man in the central mailing bureau was Henry 
Bradley.
Now, so there is a duplicating bureau and three 
sub-departments under the duplicating bureau? 
That’s true.
And the mail room is one of them?
The mail room is one.
Mr. Bradley, I will show you what has been marked 
for identification purposes as Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 1 and ask you to tell me whether you know 
what that is?
This is a charge of discrimination about me being



20
)

■>

3
4

3

6

8
9

10

ii Q
1 2

1 3

14

17

1 8

1 9

2 1

2 3

discriminated in my clerical work of being 
carried as mail porter, but did not do any 
porter work. All of my work was clerical work.

MR. BURCH: Excuse me. I tried not 
to object too much. The witness is now 
characterizing this exhibit and we are 
going to object to that. His reading 
is not responsive to the question.

MR. HIGHSAV: Same objection, Your
Honor.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, is this your 
signature?

THE COURT: Well, I think the lady 
can identify it. It is necessary to 
show that they have gone through that 
procedure, is it not?

MR. BURCH: Yes, but he has gone 
to the body of it in saying, or reading 
in his own terms what the thing contains;.

i

It goes beyond just identifying the 
exhibit.

THE COURT: Well, why are you 
offering this, Ms. McDonald?

Ms. McDONALD: I am trying to show 
that Mr. Bradley has complied with the

/  0  /



1

u

3

4

5

6
7

8
Q

1 0

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 8

1 ?

1 8

1 V

2 0

2  1

22

2 "j

2 4

2 5

_________________________________ ____________________ ______________________  21
administrative procedures.

THE COURT: I think it is admissi- I 
ble for that purpose.

MR. BURCH: We would object for thej 
record, Your Honor, to the entry of the j 
charge into the record. We have admittejd 
in our answer that the charge was filed 
and that the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission eventually gave Mr. Bradley 
a letter advising him he had the right 
to sue. But we would object to the 
charge and decision of the Commission 
on the ground that they are not relevant

i
to the issues in the case, do not con
stitute findings of fact that are in any 
way binding on this Court.

THE COURT: I recognize that what 
they found is of no evidentiary matter 
here and is not binding. I think she 
can offer the whole works to show that 
she complied with the procedure.

MR. HIGHSAW: I have no objection 
that she followed the procedure.

THE COURT: And the Commission 
acted on it.

/  7  J. o



tA

3

4
5

6

7
8
9

1 0

11

1 2

1 3

1 4

15
1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2  l

2 2

24
*> .Ar

22
Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Referring to Plaintiff's 

Exhibit 1, is this your signature?
i

A That is my signature, yes, ma’am.
MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence i 

at this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, 
charge of discrimination filed by the 
plaintiffs in this action.

THE COURT: It will be admitted 
for that limited purpose.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) I will show you what has been 
marked for identification purposes as Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 2, and ask you to tell me what this is?

THE COURT: You can just offer it, { 
if you tell me that is the file from 
the OEC, no one is going to quibble 
about it.

i

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Referring to Plaintiff’s
:Exhibit 2, is this the decision that you received 

from the Commission after you filed your charge?
A Yes, ma’am, it is.

MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, the decision of 
the OEC.

THE COURT: Received.
Q (By Ms. McDonald.) And referring to the exhibit

/  7 3 « -



1

■y

3

4

5

6
?

8
9

1 0

l i

1 2

1 3

14

15

1 6

1 7

1 8

19

2 0

y ■*

2 2

x

*> .(

25

23

which is marked for identification, is this the 
notice of right to sue which you received from 
the Commission concerning your charges against 
these defendants?

A From the Commission?
Q Y e s .

A Yes, ma’am, it is.
MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence j 

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.
!

MR. BURCH: May the record simply 
reflect that we have the same objection 
to Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

MR. HIGHSAW: And the same objec
tion, Your Honor.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, would you explainj
to the Court what were your duties as you 
characterized it, head of the mail room?

A As head of the mail room?
Q Yes. Tell the Court what you did.
A My duties as head of the mail room was supervisory.

I taught the men, the new men coming in for 
employment, I taught them about the various 
boards. We had, let me see, four boards and a 
working table. Now, I taught those men how to 
handle the mail on each of those four boards.

t C  y ' 4 -



24
And then in addition to that, we had to address 
our envelopes. I taught them how to use the 
addressograph machine, and in addition to that 
we had to write up United States Registered Mail, j 
certified mail, Railway Express prepaid, COD, 
airmail and airmail prepaid and airmail collect 
express, all express. We had certified mail and 
registered mail. The certified mail, whenever 
the mail would come down, sometimes the letters

i
would come down from the various departments 
from the building as well as from the shop on 
which was attached a number, a certified receipt 
number and a little stub. This letter was properly 
weighed, postage affixed, whether it was certified 
and return receipt requested.

The same with registered mail, we had 
to weigh the mail, apply the correct postage, 
the value of the registered mail, state the value,! 
whether it was of any extent value or of no value 
and then in addition we had to have return receipt! 
requested.
Can you tell the Court how you went about
weighing1 the mail?
I weighed the mail.
What would you do?

/ o  cc~



i

■>Ar

3

4
5

6
7

8
9

1 0

I I

12

13

1 4

1 q

1 6

1 7

18
1 9

20

2 1

? *4

2 4

2  s

25
A We had on this long working table, I imagine is 

about ten or twelve foot long, and in the center
|on a little table there was a scale, a United
I

States postage scale. I would weigh this mail 
and determine whether it was first class, what 
I mean to say, had to have the class, first, 
second, third or fourth class mail.

Q How would you know the rates?
A The rates? I had an official manual. I studied

the official postal manual, and I had to determine
■

if it was first class mail, second class mail or 
third class mail. All of that is listed in this 
official manual. We had to know about the various 
laws pertaining to postal regulations.

Q How would you know —
i

A And about the various laws pertaining to the mail 
going to foreign countries, such as Germany,
France, England, Russia, Portugal and all of the 
foreign countries. And the rates varied and were !

i

different than the domestic rate of our country.
In addition to that, I taught the men 

how to throw the mail to the various pigeonholes, j 
We have what they call the office board, the 
inner-office mail.

Q What is a board?

/ C  <t 4 -



26
i A

3
4
3
6

8

9

1C

1 1

1 2  !

13 Q

14

Jl O A
17

18 Q

19

2 0 A

2  I Q

2 2
A

23 Q

24 A

A board, it is a big board in which is pigeonholes!, 
boxes, similar to those in the post office. And

I

the clerks or messengers from the various offices
II

picked that mail up from the outside just as they 
do in the post office. Now, those of us in the 
mail room would throw the mail into those boxes 
from the inside, and this mail was thrown according 
to the department or the head of a department, of 
the person in each department. Sometimes the men | 
would not know who the men were or where they 
were located and it was my responsibility to know 
exactly what box that mail was to go into.
Now, the people who would pick up the mail after 
it was inserted in the pigeonhole, how were they 
classif ied?
Some of them were classified as clerks, some

Ihead clerks, some messengers.
What was their race during the time that you were 
employed?
Their race?
Race.
Their race was white.
Can you recall there ever being a black messenger? 
From the shop, there was one man, coming over from 
the shop, that was a Negro, and he was the one

/ O f e L ~



1

Im

3

4
5

(■>

7
8
9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

13
1 9

17

18
1 9

20
21

2 2

23

27
that drove the truck. But throughout the 
building there was all white, no Negro picking 
up any mail.

Q Now, if loose sheet mail came down from one of 
the nine floors in the building, how was that 
sent out, who was responsible for sending that 
out?

A. What we call loose mail, just the typewritten
j

sheet or pencil, and it is addressed to a certain 
person, a certain company or a certain individual, 
if that was addressed to a general agent, a 
division agent or a district agent, that would 
go on that board. We had a board which we called 
the general agent’s board and all that loose 
sheet mail would be given to the man working that 
board. He would put that mail in the pigeonhole i 
to a general agent or whoever it was going to.

On the train mail, the board for the 
train mail, the same applied. It could have been 
addressed to an agent such as like Dallas or San 
Antonio or Mejia, or New Orleans, and it was 
thrown into that particular box. We have another 
board there called the Cotton Belt and the same 
applied on that, we put the mail in there.

Q Who would write up the envelopes?



i

j

3

4

5
6
7
8
9

10
I I

1 2

13

14

1 5

1 6

17

18

19

2 0

2 1

22
23

24

28
A The envelopes, each man who worked on the board 

would take care of his own envelopes.
Q He would actually have to address the envelope?
A Address the envelope, whether it was by pencil

or pen or addressograph machine. The way we would 
do, in order to save time, rather than address an 
envelope when it was needed, we would take, say, 
about twenty-five or thirty envelopes and use the

Iaddressograph machine and address that number and 
put them all in that particular box. Whenever we 
wanted to close out, we would just take one 
envelope and put the mail in that envelope and 
we would have sufficient envelopes for days to

j come.
Q Where was this addressograph machine located at ! 

first?
A It was in the hall, in the central mailing and 

duplicating bureau.
Q Did the central mailing —
A Pardon me, please. At one time we had an

addressograph machine in the mail room. It was 
a small one, but that was sold and it was on the 
outside.

Q Who else used this addressograph machine that was 
in the hall at the duplicating bureau?



J

J

3

4
5
6
7
8

9

1 0

l i

12
13

1 4

15
1 fi

l l

■i i~*r -

1<*

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

l

29
A That was used by everybody throughout the

building together with we in the mail room.
Q Now, these other people that used this addresso- 

graph machine, do you know how they were 
classif ied?

A They were classified as clerks and some of them 
were head clerks. Sometimes, I recall, a head 
clerk coming out of the freight account, coming 
down once, he didn't have anything else to do.

I

In fact, he was teaching someone how to handle 
this addressograph machine.

Q Now, you mentioned that as a part of your
supervising activity, you taught men how to 
perform their jobs. Did you do anything else?

A Yes, ma'am, I did. There was one time we used
I

to deliver mail to the general attorney's office, 
what we call Baker, Botts, that's what we called j

I{
it, Baker, Botts. We made a trip down there 
twice a day, in the morning and in the afternoon. ] 
One afternoon we had a man working in the mail 
room by the name of Donald Pitts, and he made 
this trip to Baker, Botts with the regular mail, 
leaving there at 2:00 o'clock. All he had to do 
was go to Baker, Botts, leave that mail and pick 
up the mail coming back to the building. This

/ J c  %.



1

2

3

4

5
6
7/

6

9

1C

11

12
1 3

14

1 5

16

17

IS
1 9

1 v

2 1
-7 **L, Sir

23

24
2 5

30
mail that was picked up from Baker, Botts was

I
addressed to various departments in the building, 
some of which was addressed to Mr. Lowe, who was 
president at that time. And it was addressed to 
the general manager, whoever it was addressed to, 
and that mail was to be thrown into the various 
boxes.

Now, Donald didn’t get back that day 
until after 5:00 o’clock. I reprimanded Don 
about being so late with this important mail, 
some of which was mail that Mr. Lowe’s office,
I believe it was Mr. Lowe, anyway the president’s 
office, had sent down looking for it from Baker, 
Botts. They had called Baker, Botts and they 
said the messenger had picked it up that evening, ' 
and Don didn’t get back to the mail room until 
after 5:00 o’clock. I reprimanded him and told 
him that the mail was late and caused lots of

!
confusion, his mail was late coming in and we

j

would be late getting the mail out. So I told
j

him not to come back to work the next day, that 
he was suspended, to come back and tell 
Mr. Markham. That night I called Mr. Markham 
and told him what had happened. Pardon me, may 
I make this statement, I told him that he was

/ / /



1
2
3

4

7
8
9

10
1 i 

12 
1 3

1 4

11 >

18
19

20 ,
21 Q

22

23 A

_____________________________________ __ ___________ 31
suspended and not to come back to work until he
had talked to Mr. Markham. He had a knife in his 
pocket, and he tried to catch me to cut me, and 
around this long table I ran this way and he ran 
that way, just chased me around the table. So 
finally I didn’t have anything to defend myself, 
so I finally ran outside and got in touch with a 
policeman. The policeman came in and he said,
"This man said you ran at him with a knife.”
Don was drunk, had been drinking heavily, you 
could smell it. And he said, "No, I don’t have 
a knife. And at that time Don was wearing 
leather boots, his trouser leg was over the boots,; 
and so the officer searched him. He held his

i

hands up like this and the officer searched him
iand he couldn’t find the knife. And finally the 

officer ran his hand down the leg and felt the 
boot and told him to pull up the pant leg and he 
did. And then to take off his boots and the 
officer found the knife.
Mr. Bradley, you suspended Mr. Pitts, is that
c o r r e c t ?

That’s right. Pardon me, please, the next 
morning Mr. Markham came down. I told him that 
night, Mr. Markham came down and Mr. Markham

/Vi-t.



upheld me in my ruling suspending him, and for 
him to see Mr. Markham when he came down.
At this period of time how were you classified,
Mr. Bradley?
I was classified as a mail porter.
But you were receiving the rate that Mr. King l
had received which was a little bit higher than
the other mail porters? I
T !I was.

.

Now, if mail porters in the mail room wanted a
j

day off, how would they get that day off?
They would ask me.

iAnd would you give them permission to have the 
day off?
Yes, I would. I told them it would be all right. 
There were some times I didn’t feel like we could 
spare them, by being off on a certain day, because; 
of conditions and handling the mail. So I would 
tell them, "I would like for you to stay here 
because we need you, the work is pretty heavy 
and we just need you." Sometimes they would not 
agree and they would go to see Mr. Markham, and 
Mr. Markham would send them back and say, "Henry 
is head of the mail room."
And would you make the decision?

//J4,



1
•■'I

3

4

5
b
7

~t
9

10
11
12

1 3

1 4

1 5

lb
1 7

1 8

1 9

20
21
7 ">

2 ->

33
A I would make the decision.
Q If a new person wanted to be employed in the mail

Iroom and had to be interviewed, who interviewed 
him? |

A I did .
Q Did you actually interview prospective new

employees?
A I did. Once or twice, on one or two or three

occasions, there was a man transferred from the 
station. He was recommended to me by one of the j 
other employees as being a good man, and he could j 
do a good job. So he came over and I talked with 
him and told him about the work and what we 
expected of him, we couldn’t afford to have him 
laying off haphazardly, no drinking, no vile 
language or anything of that kind. And I talked 
to him in general about the work and he said he 
was satisfied that he could do it. I told him 
all about it and I went and told Mr. Markham.
I told him we had a young man here and told him 
his name and said he is qualified and I believe 
he will make a good man. This was a man we would 
like to have.

Q Was that man hired?
A That man was hired.

. /V o



34
1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8 
9

10
11

12

1 3

1 4

15

1 7

18
19

20

24

Q What was that man's name?
A Willy B. Deese.
Q Mr. Deese, you say, was a porter in the train !

station?
A He was a porter.
Q Is there a classification called mail porter in I

.the train station?
A Mail porter at the train station, I don't know.
Q Is there a classification called porter in the 

train station?
A There is.
Q What did these porters do?
A The porter at the train station, they did manual 

work, handled mail pouches, throwed onto the 
baggage cars or mail cars. They would mop the 
floor in the waiting room, wash windows and oil 
trucks, just do labor work, just general porter 
work.

Q Earlier, Mr. Bradley, you testified about loose 
sheet mail coming down and having to send it to

j
persons within the Southern Pacific Company. 
Suppose the mail porter didn’t know where to send j 
it, how would this mail porter find out where to j 
send it?

A He would ask me.

// S



Would you tell him who to send it to?
I would. And if I didn’t know, I would look in 
my directory and I would know where to find it. I
But practically, there was very, very seldom, 
having been there so long, such a long period 
of time, there was very few people in the building 
that I did not know.
Now, suppose there were errors made in the 
sending of mail, how would these errors be 
corrected?
I was called and questioned and I would find out 
what the error was and then I would look at the 
letter and I would know who handled the work and 
I would tell them, make a correction on it and 
tell them how it should have been handled. Now, 
there was several times we had what you call mail 
pouches, consolidated mail, and we used to send 
it by truck, transport truck, and this particular 
case went to Dallas, Texas. The chief clerk in 
Dallas is named Mr. Smith, and several times 
there was mail in the Dallas pouch that belonged 
to some other agent. Mr. Smith in Dallas would 
call me in Houston by long distance and tell me 
what happened. I would express my regret that 
the incident happened and ask him to please return



i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11

1 2

13
14

15
1 6

17

18
1 9

20
21
22

23
24
2 3

36
it and that we would correct it.

Q And then would you correct the employee?
A I certainly would. Yes, ma'am.

I
Q The one that made the mistake. Now, during the 

time that you were working as head mail porter, 
how many mail porters were there in the mail room?

A At one time there was five of us.
Q Does that include yourself?
A Including myself.
Q So there were four people who you were responsiblei 

for supervising?
A That is true. |
Q Now, after the mail was bundled, as you described,! 

what would happen to it then?
A After the mail was bundled —  was this after 

Mr. King's retirement or what?
Q I am talking about —  well, before Mr. King's 

retirement, once it was bundled what would 
happen to it?

A Well, it was bundled and carried by this man that 
Mr. King employed, was carried to the station 
and to the post office in Mr. King's truck.

Q After Mr. King retired?
A After Mr. King retired, I asked for the contract :

to handle the mail. I was going to get a truck,

//



37
1
?

3 i

4

3
V*
7
o
9

1 0 Q
1 1

1 2

13

14
IS A
u> Q
1 7

14 A
19 Q
2 0

1 ! ~ X
2 2

2 3 A
? -i

buy a truck myself, and do as Mr. King had done, 
hire somebody to drive the truck and do the 
hauling and transfer and things like that.
So he told me no, the company was —  they were 
going to use a company truck and use one of the 
mail porters to carry the mail around. And so 
one of the porters is the one that used the 
company truck, would carry this mail to the 
station and post office.
Now, was there any change in terms of the name 
of the employee, the job classification of the 
employee who was responsible for carrying the 
bundles of mail before and after Mr. King 
retired?
None whatsoever.
They were called mail porters before he retired 
and after he retired also?
That is right.
Could you describe to the Court what happens 
in the morning as far as picking up the bundles 
of mail and in the evening so far as returning 
the bundles?
Yes, ma’am, I can. In the morning this man was 
driving the truck and would pick up the mail at 
the post office, a pouch of mail. It comes in

///a-



1

1

J

->

4
5

7
8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

13 Q
14

1 5
16 A

1 7 Q

18 A

19 Q
2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3 ! A

2 *4 Q
A

pouches, see, the Post Office Department would 
bundle it, tie it up in the post office. We 
didn't have anything to do with the tying, and 
they would throw this in the pouch and we would 
go to the post office. That’s this man would go 
to the post office and pick up this pouch, go to 
the station and pick up the mail over there and 
bring it to —  come on around to the transport 
and pick up the mail there and bring it to the 
building, to the mail room. When it would get 
to the mail room, we would work it out to the 
various departments where it was supposed to go. 
Excuse me just a minute. Did this employee have 
to pick up bundles of mail anywhere else other 
than the post office?
Post office, freight station.
This was one employee, and how was he classified? 
That one employee was classified as mail porter. I
Now, approximately how much time would it take him 
in the morning to pick up the bundles of mail from 
the train station and the freight station and the 
post office?
Approximately thirty to forty-five minutes.
That would be to pick it up in the train station? 
Train station, post office and transport and have



3 9
!'1

2

3 Q
4 A
5 Q
6 A
7
£

9

1C

1 1

1 2

13 Q
14 A
1 3
11>
17

18
19 Q
2 0 A
2 1

>

Q

L. JL-

-> 7.

24 A
Q

it back to the building. Now, sometimes it would 
vary, it all depends on the traffic.
But approximately thirty to forty-five minutes?

I
Thirty to forty-five minutes.
How many times would he do that a day?
He would do that once in the morning, he would 
pick up the post office twice in the morning and 
once in the afternoon. He would pick up at the

Ifreight station —  may I say it like this, the 
first trip in the morning he would pick up at 
the freight station, post office and depot.
That eliminated the freight station. That —
That would take how long?
Thirty to forty-five minutes. Now, after that 
he would pick up around 10:30, something like 
that, later on in the morning, he would go back 
to the station, pick up more mail and back to the 
post office and then back to the building.
How long would that take?
That would take approximately thirty minutes.
Then in the evening, once the mail was bundled, 
would this employee have to take the bundles 
anywhere?
Yes, tna’am, he would.
Where would he take them?

/a



1
?
3
4
3
6

H

9

JC

1 /
1 2

13

14

1 5
16
1 7
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

40
A He would carry the mail to what we called

transport mail, that was mail going by truck, 
that included the bundles and the pouches, 
carry that to the freight station. He would 
carry a pouch of mail to the post office. And 
he would carry the railroad mail over to the 
SP station and leave the truck up at the station 
and he was off from duty at that time.

Q And how long would that take in the evening?
A In the evening?
Q Yes, to do this?
A Take from twenty to thirty minutes making his 

round trip.
Q So then in the morning this employee would spend 

approximately an hour to an hour and fifteen 
minutes making the two trips that you have 
described?

A In the morning.
Q And in the evening he would spend approximately 

twenty to thirty minutes, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q So, then, for a full day he would spend

approximately one hour and twenty minutes to 
one hour and forty-five minutes, of a full day?

A Approximately. Sometimes it runs two hours for



\

'Jim Q
3 A
4 Q
5 A
6 Q
7 A
6 Q
9 A

1 0 Q
1 1 A
1 2

13 Q
14 A
15
16

17 i

18
19

2 0

2 1 i Q
2 2

23

24 A
1 c* Q

a full day.
Two hours for the outside limit?
That’s right.
That would be morning and evening?
Morning and evening.
How long is the work day for a mail porter?
Eight hours, you mean?
Yes.
Eight hours.
For the other six hours, what would he do? 
Clerical work. He was classified as mail porter 
but doing clerical work.
Specifically what would he be doing?
On these boards I was telling you about. If it 
was inter-office mail, he would be throwing mail 
in that board to be picked up by the messengers 
or head clerks, whoever picked up the mail on the 
outside. And if it was the general agent’s board 
he would be working one of them boards. Each of 
the employees would be on one of them boards.
How many other mail porters would be working 
while this one mail porter was delivering bundles 
how many were there in addition to this one?
While this one was on his round trip?

II

Yes.



IThere were three of us.
So the other three would remain in the mail room 
performing duties as you described it?
That's right. May I make this statement, at 
first I told you there were five. When this 
man passed, they did not replace him. That 
left four. Now, when this man was making his 
round trip, then I got three doing clerical 
work.
Does that include your work?
I was the fourth.
So in total there were five mail porters, 
including yourself?
That’s right.
One who would spend, as you described it, at 
the outside limit two hours carrying and picking 
up bundles?
That is true.
And the other four, including yourself, would 
perform the other duties as you have described, 
pigeonholing, weighing of mail and stamping of 
mail. Is that correct?
That is right.
Now, Mr. Bradley, suppose there were supplies 
needed in the mail room. By supplies, I mean



4 3

1
2
3 A\1
4 j Q
5 A
O 1

t

7

tt i
9

10

11
12 l

13

14
i13

lb

things that you used during the course of your 
job? )

t

You mean supplies like envelopes and stationery? 
Right. How was this secured?
The company had a stationery department. At one 
time it was just a separate department and then 
they would transfer it over to the store’s 
department. Now, I would order this stationery 
myself, either by phone or by requisition written 
by myself. Sometimes I would call Mr. Blakney, 
who was the head of the stationery at that time,
I would call him and say we need some envelopes.

.
And I said what number, the large size envelope, 
what we call 25-97, that is the large size 
envelopes. There were three or four different 
sizes.

i

17
18

19

20
21

22 
2 3

24
25

THE COURT: I am sure you just 
ordered whatever was needed without 
telling me how many sizes there were. 
Let’s just sort of keep this a little 
more confined instead of so much detail, 
if you would.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) So you had the total responsi
bility for ordering supplies?

A That is true. And may I say this, there was one

; /c±4*-
i
c



time we ordered supplies from the Texas Office 
Supply Company, and I ordered that.
Now, Mr. Bradley, was any record kept of the 
number of postage stamps used?
Yes, ma’am, there was.
And who kept this record?
I kept that record.
Now, did the system change from postage stamps 
to another method for mailing out mail?
Yes, ma’am, it did.
What was that system?
That system was the postage meter.
Who was responsible for keeping a record of how 
much was spent in the postage meter?

i

I was responsible for that record.
Could you describe briefly to the Court what you I 
did in terms of this responsibility?
This responsibility about the postage stamps, 
regular postage stamps, we would have a supply | 
of stamps and they would be ordered from the 
Treasury Department in Houston. And I would 
write, we had a little requisition form, I would 
state on this form that we have so many stamps 
left and please send us, say, three hundred 
three-cent stamps, four hundred six-cent stamps

j



I
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

i 3
16

17

18
19

20
2 !
22
■> ">
24
25

45
and so forth, and then the total amount and they

I

would send them down to me and I would sign the 
receipt. I signed the receipt for having received] 
it. When we changed to the postage meter, we had 
a check from the Treasury Department to carry toi
the post office for the necessary postage. I I
would write a letter to the Treasury Departmenti
asking to please issue a check for a certain 
amount of money to be applied to the postage 
meter machine, and I would give the number of 
that machine for the record. I

Q During this period of time you were classified 
as a mail porter, is that correct?

A Mail porter.
Q Is this what the company told you?;
A That’s right. I

i Q Now, Mr. Bradley, I’m going to show you what has !1 I
been marked for identification purposes as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, and ask you to tell me 
what that is?

j A Sometime ago I made a requisition for transporta
tion to Detroit, Michigan.

Q Well, rather than explaining in detail at this
time, all I want you to tell me is what this is?

A That is a rate order for transportation.



46
1 I Q

!2 |
3 A
4

5
6

7
8

9 Q
10

11 A
12 

13

14

16 I

17

18
1 9

20
2 !
22
23

24

23

What does it say at the top, Mr. Bradley, can 
you read that?
I have cataracts -- .

THE COURT: You can tell me what 
it is.

MS. McDONALD: It says at the top 
record of retired employee. That is all 
it is.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Is this the record of retired 
employee that you received?
Yes, ma’am, it is.

MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I offer I 
in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4,
record of retired employee for Henry H. !

jBradley.
THE COURT: What does it show, 

what relevance does it have?
MS. McDONALD: Once it is in 

evidence, it says occupation at the 
time of retirement mail clerk.

THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BURCH: We object to the 

document on the ground that there is no 
evidence who prepared this. I am 
informed that this was not prepared by



i
2

3
4

5
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

13
16

17

18
1 9

20
21

22

2 >
i _W T

23

47
,

the railroad. There is no evidence 
whatsoever of the origin of it, who

iput on this title of mail clerk. I 
don’t think it is relevant.

THE COURT: Is there any doubt 
that the man was classified as a mail 
clerk?

MR. BURCH: Yes, his title was 
mail room porter.

THE COURT: Porter?
MR. BURCH: I am not here to 

quibble as to how he wants to describe ' 
this job, but we want to keep the recordj 
straight. He always had the title of 
mail room porter.

MS. McDONAlD: I would just like
|to point out 9o«e of the blanks on the 

record of retired employee, and 
Mr. Bradley can testify that it came 
from San Francisco, which is the home 
office.

THE COURT: Is this the type of 
form that you all use for this purpose 
normally, Mr. Burch?

MR. BURCH: I don’t know anything_________________________________________ i

/ A



about the form. It was my impression 
from a previous conference this came 
from the Railroad Retirement Bureau 
and probably the origin of this occupa
tion is whatever Mr. Bradley wrote down 
on an application.

THE COURT: At least you deny that 
it came from this Southern Pacific?

MR. BURCH: No, not until I check.
THE WITNESS: May I say something?
THE COURT: No, you just be quiet 

for a minute. i
MR. BURCH: Your Honor, all I can 

say is that our company representative 
here has never seen one of these, and 
has no information indicating that it 
is a Southern Pacific document.

THE COURT: All right, sir.
MS. McDONAID: May I speak to this 

exhibit?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. McDONAIJ): I think it is very 

important because it is our contention 
that Mr. Bradley has been doing clerical 
work although he was classified as a



49
1
2
3

4

------------------1
porter. We have this and many other 
documents which show that he was referrecji 
to as a mail clerk but not paid clerk’s 
money. This is why it is terribly 
important.

6
7

6
9

10

1 1

12 Q

13

14

1 5  !I
1 6  A

17
I n

19 Qi

22

THE COURT: Well, regardless of howi 
important it is, are you prepared to 
prove that it came from the defendants ;
here? !

MS. McDQNALD: I can ask Mr. Bradley 
what it came from.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Refer to this record of 
r e tired employee, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 which 
has b e e n  marked for identification purposes.
Where did you get this?
That came to me from Mr. Pretty in San Francisco,

j

manager of the Bureau of Retired Employees,
Mr. C. A. Pretty. j
Did you get it through the mail?
T h r ough the mail, yes, ma’am.
Was there any letter of transmittal that came 
w i t h  it, or by itself?
It came in an envelope by itself.

24
2 3

'Jo c



50

1 11 BY
!

2 1 Q

3 A
4
5 Q
6 A
7

8 Q

9 |

10 A
11 Q

12
13 A
14 Q

15 A■

16 ! Q

17 A

1 o
19

20
2 i i

23 !

24

BY THE COURT:
How do you know where it came from?
It was in an envelope with his return address
on it.
And who is Mr. Pretty?
He is the manager of the Bureau of Retired
Employees, a company man.
It had his name on the upper left-hand corner
of the envelope in which it came?
Yes, sir, it did.
And that is the only basis on which you say he
was the source of this thing, right?
That is true.
When did you receive this, '69 when you retired?
When I retired, yes. I retired in ’69.
That is when you got this document?
After my retirement, yes, sir. I

MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence | 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, record of retired 
employee.

THE COURT: Well, you can have a 
chance to inquire into it later. I 
will withhold ruling on this. Counsel, 
find out if Mr. Pretty sent it or if 
this is a form that Southern Pacific

/3/jl.



51
1

2 Q
3

i
4 |

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Q
12

13 A

14

in

1 Q
1 fi

20

21 Ii
7 > L.

2 1 I

2-i

 ̂3

uses and so forth.
(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, I will show you 
what has been marked for identification as 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to tell me 
what this is, if you can, just read at the top?

THE COURT: You can tell me what 
it is.

MS. McDONAID: National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation half weight order 
must be exchanged for ticket.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Is this what is commonly 
referred to as a pass?
That’s right.

MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, National RailroadI
Passenger Corporation pass rate. And 
again, the relevancy, it says on the 
face is job classification, mail clerk, 
retired.

THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BURCH: May I have just a 

moment to confer with our representative!.
Your Honor, we object to 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 on the ground 
that there is no proof, no evidence

SJJL <C-



1
74m
3

4
5
6
7

b
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

A £'
19

20

21
22
23

24
2 >

52
that it is a document issued by the 
Southern Pacific Transportation Company.; 
I am advised that it is issued by the

!

new agency properly called Amtrack, the 
governmental agency that operates the I
passenger railroad.

THE COURT: Will you ask your 
client where he got it and when he got ! 
it and that sort of thing?

MS. McDGNAID: The issue date is 
on it, June, 1971. And by then, that 
is true.

THE COURT: June, *71, just two 
months ago?

MS. MCDONALD: Yes .
THE COURT: What has that got to 

do with his classification twenty years 
ago, which I thought we were squabbling 
over here?

MS. McDONALD: It is important and 
there is another document during the 
war and he was classified mail room 
clerk. What I wanted to point out, that 
Southern Pacific has been calling him 
mail room porter when he is performing

/3J*l



1
2
3

4
5

6
ni

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

1

1 —i
18
19
20

21
22
2 3

2 4
>

clerical duties, and yet he is commonly
referred to as a clerk, but not paid for

Iclerical duties.
THE COURT: You can show he is 

referred to accurately or inaccurately 
in correspondence or inter-company 
communications as a clerk, if you wish. | 
I think it would be admissible. The 
question would be what weight the 
Court wanted to give it. If you are 
not able to prove that is an inter
company memo or something emanat ing 
from either of these defendants, I 
would say that I couldn't receive it. 
Now, let’s get this June 9, 1971 matter,! 
can you show that emanates from the 
Southern Pacific?

MS. McDONAID: Amtrack, I will 
have to do a little checking, Amtrack 
vs. Southern Pacific. But my point is

i that when he retired, Southern Pacific
|

was calling him a mail room porter, yet 
when he received his retirement slip 
from the head office, they are carrying 
him as a mail clerk.

/J* -



5 4
1
2 
3

4 !
5 I
6
7
8 
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

18
1 9

20

21

22

23
24
2 S

THE COURT: Suppose the slip cal loci 
him the president of the company, what 
difference would it make?

i

m s . McDo n a l d : if he were per
forming duties as president of the 
company, it would be very relevant.
But he is performing clerical duties, 
since he is called a clerk by the head j 
office, he should have been paid as a 
clerk, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. j
MR . BURCH: What he was called -- Il
THE COURT: I know. Let’s go aheadj 

with the evidence. I will pass on this I 
Amtrack thing after you have had a 
chance to look into it. i

MS. McDONAID: So Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 4 and 5 —

THE COURT: Hand them to the clerk 
so I may take a look at them, please.
I will withhold ruling on both of these 
and give you and defense counsel a 
chance during the noon hour to check 
it out. Mr. Burch says he questions 
No. 4, and you tell me you have to check

, J* -



_________________________________________________55
on No. 5. So I will pass on them after i 
lunch.

j
(By Ms. McDonald.) I will show you Plaintiff's 
Exhibit 6, which has been marked for identification, 
and can you tell me what this is?
Yes, ma'am. That is an article which was in the 
Southern Pacific bulletin in regards to my 
retirement. Not my retirement, my going into 
the Navy.

MS. McDQNALD: Your Honor, I would 
like to offer this in evidence as, I
Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. 1

MR. BURCH: I object, on the 
grounds that it is not relevant or 
material. There is no proof of when•* i
this appeared In the paper. I am willingj 
to stipulate that there was a company 
publication of some kind, but there is ;
no proof of when it was published and 
the circumstances under which it was 
written, and no indication at all that 
it is binding on this defendant.

THE COURT: Hand it up here. Let 
me see.

MS. McDCNALD: May I speak to that?



As Mr. Bradley said, it was an article 
in the Southern Pacific bulletin

jreferring to when he went in the Navv ,
'  |and it says November 4th, and he will 

say it was in ’44 during the war.
Again the relevancy, they say mail

iroom clerk.
THE COURT: Is this from some 

publication by the railroad?
THE WITNESS: Southern Pacific 

Bulletin which was published in Houston.: 
THE COURT: Okay. I will receive 

it for what it is worth. I
(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, Mr. Bradley, at the 
period of time when you were, as you described 
it, head of the mail room, all of the other 
mail porters including yourself were Black, 
is that correct?
Were Black, yes, ma’am.
Now, did you ever have occasion to have a white 
person work relief in the mail room?
Yes, ma'am.
When he came in to work relief, did you receive 
any letter of introduction or something like that? 
He had a little slip which he turned over to me.



1 Q
7 '*r | A
3 i Q
^ l A
5
6

1
7 Q
8 A
9 Q
1C A
11 Q
12
13

14 A
15 Q
i6 s

i
17 ! A
18 |I|119

20 |

21
j

23 1
l

24

25

57
_ _ _ _ _  |

What was his race?
His race was white.
When he came in, what duties was he performing?
He was performing the same duties. He was the 
relief man performing the same duties as we 
were performing.
And "we" are what?
Mail porters.
All of them were what race?
All of them were Negroes.
And I will show you what has been marked for 
identification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 and ask 
you to tell me what that is?
That states the name as Charles C. White.
Okay. What is this, the card that you received 
introducing this man?
That’s right.

>®. McDONALD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7.

MR. BURCH: We object, Your Honor. 
There is a card which on the face of it 
appears to be prepared by the Texas 
Employment Commission introducing 
Charles C. White. This is not a 
Southern Pacific document, I am informed.

<



What was his race? 1

His race was white.
When he came in, what duties was he performing?
He was performing the same duties. He was the 
relief man performing the same duties as we 
were performing.
And "we" are what?
Mail porters.
All of them were what race?
All of them were Negroes.
And I will show you what has been marked for 
identification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 and ask 
you to tell me what that is?
That states the name as Charles C. White.
Okay. What is this, the card that you received 
introducing this man?
That’s right.

M3. McDONALD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7.

MR. BURCH: We object, Your Honor. 
There is a card which on the face of it 
appears to be prepared by the Texas 
Employment Commission introducing 
Charles C. White. This is not a 
Southern Pacific document, I am informed.



1
2
3
4
5
6
m/
8
9
1C

li
12

13

14
jl 3
16
17
18
19

20
2 i
22

23
?4
2 3

58
There is no proof, no evidence whatsoever 
that anyone at Southern Pacific placed 
anything on this card.

I
THE COURT: Hand it to the Clerk, 

please, ma’am.
MS. McDONALO: If I may just speak 

to that, that person to contact, B. J. 
Gibson, and the other person are 
Southern Pacific employees. As a matter! 
of fact, Mr. Gibson is supervisor of 
employment.

MR. BURCH: He is or has been 
supervisor of employment. It says on 
the face that the upper portion was 
filled out by the same person and comes 
from the Texas Employment Commission. 
Whatever Mr. Crumbaugh or someone at 
Texas Employment states is not in any 
way binding. I

THE COURT: I think that is well 
taken. I don’t think that is admissible 
against the defendant without proof that 
it emanated from them.

MS. McDONALD: I have no proof of 
that. What I am referring to is the



59
person to contact and that is Mr. Gibson 
or Mr. Wiley. These are Southern 
Pacific employees. Mr. Bradley testi
fied that this man brought this card of j 
introduction with him.

THE COURT: You are trying to show ! 
that whoever wrote up the little card 
referred to —  I don’t believe this

V Idocument is admissible, and I would so 
rule. \

(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, again referring )
ito this employee Charles White who came to work 

in the mail room, how was he classified? |
Well, I don’t know how he was classified because |
I did not see his card. 1i
What card are you referring to?
Timecard.
Why didn’t you see his timecard?
Where we got our timecards from were in the 
typewriter room, in a little box behind the 
door, and all of our timecards were placed in 
this box, and we would go there and get the 
timecards out of the box in the morning, and 
in the evening put the timecards back after 
completing our work.

/V-Q4-,



60

1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

Q Who are the "we” you are talking about?
I

A Mail porter and all of the employees in thei
Duplicating Bureau who used timecards.

* *
I Q Did this Mr. Charles White put his card in with

the other mail porters?
A No, ma’am, he did not. His card was not in there.| 

I know it was not because lots of times I would 
look through the cards trying to find mine, and

jCharles White’s card was never in there. *
Q What did he do with his card?

MR. BURCH: This is completely 
irrelevant.

THE COURT: If you don’t know what 
his classification was, what is the 
relevancy?

MS. McDONALD: I think he will be 
able to say what the man eventually
told him, Your Honor.i ■

THE COURT: I think that would be
1 /' hearsay, wouldn' t it?
21 Q (By Ms. McDonald.) So you never saw his card?
22 A I did not see his card.
23 | MR. BURCH: I just objected to
24 that question.
25 THE COURT: It doesn’t do any harm



61
1

2 ! Q
3
4 A
5 Q
6

7 1
8 A
9

10

11 Q
12
13 A
14 Q

15 i
ie>

17 A
18 Qi
19 A|
20 Q

21 ! A
i

22 Q

2 3
 ̂♦ A

to say he didn’t see it. Go ahead.
(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, what was this 
Mr. Charles White’s race?
He was white.
Now, Mr. Bradley, when did you join the union, 
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship 
Clerks?
At first we joined the union in 1954. I think 
it was Local 1534, and then I don’t know the year ' 
that we went in with 589. I don’t know the year, j 
When you joined 1534, was that local lodge a part !
of the brotherhood?
It was a part of the brotherhood.
When we refer to the brotherhood, we are talking 
about the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and 
Steamship Clerks?
That's right, and warehouse employees.
And what was the race of members of 1534? I
Negro.
All Negro?
All Negro.
Now, vvhy is it that you were not able to join 
the union before 1954?
We were in what we call excepted positions, we
were not able —  permitted to join the union.



What was an excepted position?
Excepted position from my understanding from 
supervisors, it was the handling of confidential 
mail.
Did you handle any confidential mail?
Yes, ma’am.
And what do you do with this confidential mail? 
This confidential mail —

MR. BURCH: Objection, Your Honor, 
this is also completely irrelevant to 
any issues in this case.

THE COURT: I wonder if that is 
not so.

MS. McDONAlD: I think I can show 
the relevancy. After they pigeonholed 
the confidential mail, it was picked up 
by clerks, members of the union. They 
were allowed to join the union.

THE COURT: Are you suing them for 
not letting him join the union before 
1954?

MS. McDONALD: No, but this adds 
to the pattern of what is going on and 
I want to point out that it was the 
company that classified Mr. Bradley and



not the union. The union was not 
involved until 1954.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, that is 
almost twenty years ago. The question 
of which position is within the 
company or excepted, in other words, 
excluded from the union bargaining unit, 
is a matter that is determined either
by law or bargaining. Now, the fact is 
that back in 1954 the company and union 
agreed that these jobs should be in the 
bargaining unit. That is twenty years 
ago.

THE COURT: I don't really believe 
we want to go back to ancient history.
I don’t think it proves a thing that 
he has been discriminated against.

MS. McDONAli): I think it does.
THE COURT: I don’t. I would

sustain the objection. Let’s go to 
something new, please, ma’am.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, how did you 
happen to join the union?
Well, from the very beginning we were excepted 
positions, and I complained to Mr. Bryan Adams.



\

2
3

4
5
6
7
6
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
18
1 y
20
21
22
2 3

24
25

64
I made an appointment to talk with him about the! I
situation, see if we couldn't get our situation
corrected. And we had this appointment and he
said that we had been carried as porters for such
a long period of time there was nothing he could
do about it. He couldn’t change it. It would

i take an act of Congress to do that. He said he 
realized it was not porter work, but there was 
nothing he could do about it then. He further 
said that it was not the company who was keeping 
us out of the union or classifying my job, it 
was the union.

MR. HIGHSAV: I object to that, 
because counsel has just stated a few 
moments ago the union was not involved 
at that stage.

THE COURT: I would sustain an 
objection that it was hearsay. Goi
ahead.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, did you ever 
have any conversations with the local chairman 
of 589?

:

A Yes, ma'am, I did.
I Q What is his name?
A Mr. L. L. Greater. And at one time it was

---------------------------------------------------------- 1



1

2 I QI
3 1

I

4 | A
5
6

10
11
12
13

14

1 3

17 (
18 !
19 i

20 i

21 j

22
„  i|
24 I

_______________________________________________________________________________ 65

E. N. Hudson. Hudson was before Mr. Greater.
Was this a factor in yoir joining the union, your

Iconversations with Mr. Hudson?
Well, he told us that it was not porter work, 
our job was not porter work, and if we would 
join together, all of the locals joined together, 
that we could get that corrected.
Mr. Bradley, I am going to show you what has 
been marked for identification purposes as 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and ask you to tell me 
if this is your membership card in Local 589?
Yes, ma’am, it is.

MS. McDONAUD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8.

THE COURT: Received.
MR. HIGHSAW: May counsel state 

for the record, I do not see a date.
THE COURT: When did you join,

Mr. Bradley?
MS. MCDONALD: It says on here 

good until December 31, 1971.
THE COURT: When did you join 589?
THE WITNESS: That is what I was 

saying a moment ago, Your Honor. We 
were in 1534 and we merged into 589.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15
16

17
1»

19

2C
21
7  7A*

23

24
2 5

66

Q

A
Q

A
Q

i
A

Qr

A
Q

A

THE COURT: When?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know the datej. 
THE COURT: Okay. j

(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, Mr. Bradley, when, as a j 
mail porter, were you first given the opportunity 
to transfer into what was called the Group 1? 
January 1st, 1966.
What were the types of jobs in Group 1 at that 
time?

ii
Clerical jobs.
Now, when you transferred over into Group 1, 
what would happen, how did it operate?
Well, I was, our seniority was dated from 
January 1st, 1966.
Now, what did that mean, suppose you transferred 
over and you wanted to promote to head rate clerk,!

ifor example?
I felt that —

.

Just let me finish my sentence. What seniority 
would you use for promotions?
For promotions I would use my January 1st, 1966 
seniority.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I am sorry 
I am tardy. I want to object to the 
witness' testimony about what kind of

/ *» /



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11

12
1 3

14

1 5

1 6

1 7

18
1 9

"» AX. V
21
22

23

2 4

2 5

67
seniority he would use. The best
evidence of that is the agreement betweqn

|the company and the labor organization.
I

He is now testifying and being asked
1about a conclusion.

THE COURT: I think he may tell 
us his understanding of it, counsel.
I don’t believe it would be necessary 
to exclude it. Go ahead.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Now, Mr. Bradley, I am going j 
to show you what has been marked for identifica
tion purposes as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 and ask 
you to tell me what this is?

A I can’t read this.
Q Is it a letter?
A It is a letter to Mr. Greater, local chairman

of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, Local 589.
Q And was this letter sent to him by you, is this 

your signature?
A Yes, ma’am.

MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I offer i
in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, a 
letter to Mr. L. M. Greater, local

jI
chairman, from Mr. Henry Bradley.

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, I have no*,__________________________________________________________1

/‘Z



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

1 7

\ *

19
20

21
22

2 5
24
7 ^

68
objection to the admission of this 
letter to show that on July 2, 1967

I
Mr. Bradley wrote a letter to Mr. L. M.

I
Greater, local chairman of Lodge 589, 
complaining about his seniority date 
and complaining about the classification 
of his job. I would object, however, |
to the admission of it for the truth of j 
any statements contained in the letter, ; 
because it contains numerous hearsay 
statements as well as self-serving 
conclusions of the plaintiff. For 
example, the letter speaks of, compares 
the duties of the mail room to the dutieis 
in the post office, which is obviouslv !
hearsay and they are referring to matterls 
which occurred in 1912, many years

I

before.
THE COURT: 1912?
MR. HIGHSAW: Yes, Your Honor.

|
That is examples of hearsay evidence.

THE COURT: I will receive it, but 
not intending to prove the truth of the 
matters therein contained.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, I show you what______ ______________ ___________________________ i

/V



■>** Exhibit 1.0, and ask you to tell me whether this
3 1 is a letter addressed to you?
4 A That is a letter addressed to me from Mr. Greater
5 Q And what is the date of this letter?
6 A The date is —
7 Q December 10, 1967?
8 A That's right.
9 | MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I offer
10 in evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, a
1 1 letter addressed to Mr. Bradley from
12 Mr. L. M. Greater.
13 THE COURT: Received.
14 Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, I am going to
15 show you what has been marked for identification
lf> as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to tell me
17 whether this is a letter to you?
18 A It is a letter to me from Mr. Denis, yes, ma’am.
19 Q And Mr. Denis, what does it say under his name?
20 A International president.
2 i Q And is that of the Brotherhood of Railway and
1 * X. * Steamship Clerks?
23 A That's right. Yes, ma'am.
24 MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I offer
2S in evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.

/TOO.



THE COURT: Received.
(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, Mr. Bradley, in January
of 1966 when, as you testified, your understanding

|
you were first able to transfer to Group 1, 
clerical employees, how many years had you been 
employed at that time?
At that time, let me see, in 1966 I had been 
employed forty-one years.
How long had you been classified as a mail porter 
doing the duties you have described?
Since 1934.
So that would be what, thirty-two years? 
Thirty-two years.
And you testified that you retired in July of 
1969?
'69, yes, ma’am.
How old are you in January, 1966?
I was, let me see, 1966 —
How old are you now?
I am sixty-seven now. I was sixty-two.
And you had how many more years to retire?
1 had three more years to retire.
Now, when you were transferred over into 
Group 1, what would happen to your seniority 
in Group 2, your understanding of it?



1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

II
12
13

1 4

1 :
16

17
18
19

20
2 1

22

■w t

25

71
MR. BURCH: Objection again, and

j

that the agreement would be the best 
evidence. Il

THE COURT: He may tell us, if he 
knows.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Would you be able to transfer i 
back to your old job?

A If I had been bid on a job in Group 1?
Q Yes.
A No, ma'am, I would not have been.
Q Now, as a result of what you have described,

Mr. Bradley, being classified as a mail porter, 
have you lost any money?

A I have, yes, ma’am.
j

Q Now, why have you lost money?
A By being —

MR. BURCH: Objection. She is now
lasking him to make a finding and conclu

sion.
THE COURT: I am not going to find 

damages. I think he may testify that 
he has lost something and why he thinks 
he has lost something. If I conclude 
there is liability, we will go into the 
question later.



72
1 Q
2 A
3 Q
4 A
5

6 i
7

8

9

1 0 Q
1 1

1 2

1 3 A

1 4

I f*

17  ;

1 8

1 9

2 0 j
2 1 j

2 3 |

2 +
2 5 Q

(By Ms. McDonald.) Why have you lost money?
I have lost money, yes, ma'am.
Why have you?
Why have I? By not being given the proper rate 
on the job that I am doing as a clerk, head clerk 
in the mail room, comparable to head clerk in 
other departments, particularly the head clerk 
in freight traffic, customer service, which rate 
is $195 a month more than what my salary was.
If you had been able to use your seniority dating 
from 1934, would you have been, in your opinion, 
been able to make more money?
I would have.

MS. McDONALD: I would like to 
offer in evidence what has been marked 
as Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, which is 
Plaintiff's interrogatories to Southern 
Pacific and its response, listing the 
wage rates that Mr. Bradley has earned 
from the time he was employed until the 
time he retired. Can we stipulate on 
this, Mr. Burch?

THE COURT: If they are answered, 
they do not need to stipulate. Received 

(By Ms. McDonald.) Mr. Bradley, you testified



73
1 ;
7L i
3 A
4
5

Q

6
7i A
8

9

10

1 1
12
13 Q
14

is ! A
16 Q

I
17
18 j
19
7- i Al

Q
22 i

23 ji

24
2.S A

that in your opinion you were doing clerical 
duties?
I did.
What are some of the names of the clerks in 
Group 1 whom you feel were doing work comparable j 

to yours?
Well, the control clerk, the record clerk, the 
rate clerk in the freight traffic department, 
which I compared my job to. That is as near as 
I could get to it. There was general clerk and 
there were several other clerks that I don’t 
recall right now. |
Are you familiar with the duties of a collection 
clerk? I

Collection clerk? Yes, ma’am.
Do you feel in your opinion, your duties as mail 
porter, duties of a mail porter are akin or 
equivalent in terms of responsibility to collec
tion clerk?
I do.
Mr. Bradley, at the time that you filed this 
complaint, did Southern Pacific, from your 
observation, have more than a hundred employees 
employed?
At that time?___________________________________________________ I

/ iV ̂



1
2

3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13
1 4

i J>
1*
1 7

1 8

1 9

20
21
22

“V 4

23

74
Q
A

A

1

Yes, sir. I
Yes, ma’am.7 :

And from your observation, did Local 589 have
more than a hundred members?
Yes, ma’am.

MS. McDONAUD: Now, Your Honor, I. I have two more exhibits which I want 
to introduce and again they came from 
responses to interrogatories. I have 
nothing more with the witness, because 
I don’t want to go into the exact amount 
of damages until liability is deter
mined, and then I would like to call 
him back.

THE COURT: Do you want to offer 
these?

MS. McDONALD: Perhaps I had i
better offer the wage rates in now, I
if I may.

THE COURT: These are responses
\

to interrogatories. They are admissibly
1

MS. McDONAlD: They are Exhibits 
13 and 14. 13 is the wage rate and 14
is the seniority roster.

THE COURT: Received.

/rrc



75
1
2

3
4 !

5
6

7
8 

9

10

11

12

13
14

1 5 

16

17
18
19

20

2 A
24
2 3

MS. McDGNALD: I’m sorry, Your 
Honor. 13, as I have it, is the i
seniority roster for District Group 1 
dated January 1st, 1965. And on the 
exhibit is indicated "LA” for Latin 
American and "N" for Negro, and those 
without identification are white.

i

Exhibit 14 are the wage rates for 
employees of Defendant Southern Pacific 
from January 1st, 1964 until, it should 
be, November 1st, 1970.

MR. BURCH: Would you identify
i

those as to the interrogaty number 
or the exhibit number that we used in 
our response, please?

MS . McDQNALD: They are mar ked on 
the exhibit. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 is 
Exhibit No. 6, Interrogatory No. 27. 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 is Exhibits 1, i
2, 3, 4 concerning Interrogatory No. 7.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, we have no 
objection to the authenticity of those 
records. I do think that Exhibit 13 
is not really relevant, since it is a 
seniority roster as of 1965.



i
2

3

4
5

6

7
8

9

10
11
12

13

14

1 5

16

17
18
1 9

21
22
23

24
2 5

76
THE COURT: Well, if it is not 

relevant when I look at it, I will not 
consider it. Let’s go ahead.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:
'

Q Mr. Bradley, you were just telling us about a
job you thought had comparable duties and I would 
like to identify those, if we can. You mentioned j 
collection clerk. Do you know where that job is, 
in what department?

A Yes, I do.
Q Where is that?
A That is in the accounting department on the sixth j 

floor.
Q How about the record clerk?
A They have a record clerk on the sixth floor.
Q Is that in the accounting department?
A Mechanical department.
Q Accounting?
A That is the accounting department.
Q How about the general clerk that you mentioned?



They have a general clerk on that floor also.
Do you know whether or not that is in the 
accounting department also?
Yes, sir. j
How about the collection clerk, where is that |
located? ]
That is in the accounting department also.
Mr. Bradley, at the time you retired, or at the 
present time, do you know whether the company 
employs any Negro persons in any of those jobs? 
Yes, sir.
As a matter of fact, there are Negroes employed 
in all of those jobs, are there not?
In all of those, collection clerk, record clerk, 1 
yes, sir, that’s right.
Do you know personally any of the employees who 
bid into those jobs?
I do.
Did you voluntarily choose not to bid into any of 
those jobs?
I did.
Did you like your work in the mail room?
I did.
Would it be fair to say that you considered your 
responsibility there to be a fairly important

J



78

2 A
3 Q
4
5
6 A
7 Q

9 A
10 Q

11 A
12 Q

14 A

15 | Q

17

18
19 A
20 Q

2 1

2, 1 A
24 «

function?
I beg your pardon.
I said, would it be fair to say that you

' I
considered your job there to be a fairly 
important function?

>*•

Very important.
Did you from time to time perform the same duties ; 
as the other men who worked in the mail room?
As the other men in the mail room?
Yes, sir.
I was head man.
Well, did you ever perform any of the duties that ' 
the other men in the mail room performed?
Yes, sir, I did.
As a matter of fact, wasn't your method of 
operation in there generally to try to cooperate 
with one another and keep the mail flowing 
through the room?
That's right. j

And in doing that, didn’t the various men in 
there step in and help one another out from 
time to time?
I beg your pardon. Did what men?
I am talking about the men in the mail room.
I am talking about the men classified by the

/ft*.



79
1
7Am

3

4 !

5 A
6 Q
~ri A
8 Q
9
10 A
11 Q
12

13

14 A
1 5 Q
16

17 A
18 Q
19

20 A
21

22 A
23 Q
24 A
1 r Q

company as mail room porters. Isn’t it a fact 
that from time to time the various mail room 
porters would help each other out in order to 
keep the work moving?
That is true.
And you did that yourself, didn’t you?
Yes, sir, I did.
And you spent a substantial amount of time, from 
time to time, pigeonholing mail, did you not? 
That’s true.
Did you ever haul the mail from the Southern 
Pacific office building to any of these locations 
you described earlier?
No, sir, I did not.
Did one man do that hauling all the time or was 
that duty rotated?
That was one man’s duty.
Did anyone ever —  tell us who that was by name 
when you retired?
That hauled the mail?
Yes, sir.
At one time it was Willy B. Deese.
Who did it after Mr. Deese left?
After Mr. Deese left?
Yes, sir.



80

1 A

2 ! Q
3 A
4 Q
5 A
6 Q
7
8 A
9 Q
10
11
12 A
13 Q
14

15
16 A
17 Q
1 £

A > A

20 !| Q

21 \

22 A
2 3 Q

24
25 ! A

We had Bedford Collier.
All right. Who did it after Mr. Collier?
Paul Ledette.
Who was hauling the mail when you retired?
Ernest John Mackey, I think it is.
Incidentally, do you know that Mr. Mackey now 
occupies the job that you held in the mail room? 
That’s right.
From time to time when the man that hauled the 
mail was absent, would other porters haul the 
mail?
That is true.
After the mail was hauled into the mail room 
in pouches, or whatever form it came in, was it 
necessary to handle the mail in the mail room?
Was it necessary to handle the mail? Yes, it was. 
Was it necessary to move the pouches and bundles 
around?
It was.
Was it necessary to open them up and remove the 
mail so that it could be sorted and processed?
It was.
Did you participate in and assist in this work 
from time to time?
I did.

/



1 Q
2 !

3

4
5 A
6 Q
7

8 A
9 Q

1 0 A
1 1

1 2 Q
1 3 1

1 4 A
-  J Q

1 6
1
A

1 7 «
1 8

1 9 A
2 0 i
2 1 | Q
2 2 j

2 3 j A

2 4 Q

After mail was processed and handled in the mail 
room and was ready to go out to the freight 
station, or wherever it was to be taken, was it 
placed in pouches or bundles?
It was placed in both.
Was that then carried out of the mail room and I
placed on the truck?
It was.
And who did that?
The mail porter, one of the men that was driving 
the truck.
Did any of the other mail porters help him carry 
pouches out?

.

Yes, sir.
Did you ever help carry it out?
No, sir, I did not.
How did your duties differ from the duties of the 
other mail room porters?
My duties was different because I was head man, i
I was supervisor.
Well, you did work in the mail room, didn't you, 
in spite of being supervisor?
In addition to my supervising.
You said that you had a scale in the mail room 
that was on a center table. Is that correct?2 5



That’s correct.
Did any of the other mail room porters handle 
that scale while you were in there?
When I was teaching them how to handle it.
Did you normally reserve that job for yourself?

I

I did not necessarily reserve that job for myself, 
because that was the job that Mi'. C. A. King had 
and it was just handed down to me.
In normal operation, did you spend more time 
using the scale than the other mail room porters? ; 
Than the other mail room porters? I did.
Did you have certain vacation rights when you 
were working for the company?
I did.
At the time you retired, how many weeks’ vacation ! 
were you entitled to?
Four weeks.
Did you normally take all of your vacation? .

I did.
Who carried on the functions in the mail room 
when you were absent on vacation, if you know? 
Well, at one time it was Renfro Moody and 
sometimes it was Willy B. Deese.
Yes, sir.
And sometimes it was C. W. Monroe.



8 3
1 Qi
2

3 A
4 Q
5
6 A
7 Q
8

9

10

11
12
13

14 i

1 5
16 ! A
17 Q
18
19 A
20 Q
21 ! A
22 Q
23

24 A
2 S, Q

Were you ever absent on occasions other than 
vacation?
Sometimes ill.
When you were ill, did someone else in the mail 
room carry on the work there in your absence?
I'm quite sure, but I don't know who they were. 
Let me go back just a minute, Mr. Bradley, to a 
question I asked you about these jobs that you 
named as being comparable to your job, record 
clerk, rate clerk, general clerk and collection 
clerk. In your judgment, if you had chosen to 
bid for those jobs, do you think you would have 
had the skill, ability and qualifications to 
handle those jobs within a reasonable period 
of t ime?
I do.
Did you ever submit a bid, Mr. Bradley, for any 
job other than the mail room job?
I did.
About when was that?
I don *t know.
Did you withdraw that bid the day after you 
submitted it?
I did.
Did anybody with the company tell you to withdraw

/C4'*-'



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
6
9

10

11
1 2

13

14
i
1 f.m

17

18
19

20

21

? ’
24
m  7?

that bid? !84

A No one did.
f

Q Was it your own choice to withdraw it?
A My own decision.

BY THE COURT:
Q I take it, then, for reasons of your own you

didn’t want to transfer for one of these clerk's
.jobs?

A It was not a matter of not wanting to. My 
decision was to not transfer because if my 
seniority date would have been January 1st, 1966,
I had been there in the mail room all of those 
years and having had just three years to go 
for my retirement, I would have lost approximately1 
thirty-two years. Had I bid on a job with my 
seniority date January 1st, 1966, the company 
could have hired a man anywhere in 1965, he could j 

have bumped me and I would not have had any place ' 
to go. I would have had to exercise my seniority 
on down the line and eventually I would be out of 
a j ob.

Q But at the time that you filed the bid and then
withdrew it —

A I did.



85
1 Q
2 i
3
4

5 A
6 Q
7

10 BY
11 Q
12

I
13  .

14

15 A

16 i Q

17 A
18 Q

at that time you told me that there were Negroes 
in those various clerks’ positions to which you 1
were considering and ultimately did make applica-

ition, but then withdrew it?
That’s right.

|
So you are not suggesting that you failed to make i 
or to pursue the bid because of your race?
No, sir, I’m not.

I
MR. BURCH:

Mr. Bradley, I think it is very evident from
|

everything you have said that you have ample 
and entirely adequate ability to read and write, 
do you not?
Ability to read and write?
Yes, sir.
Certainly I have.
You had dealt with written material in your job 
every day, did you not?
Every day .
After you joined the clerks' organization, did you 
ever see a copy of the contract or agreement 
between the company and the union?
No, sir, I did not.
You never saw a copy of the labor agreement that

/ & it ■C.



86

2 A

3 Q
4 i
3

6

7 A

8 Q
9 A

1 0 Q
1 1 A
1 2 Q
1 3 A
1 4 Q
1 5

1 6 A
1 7

1 8 Q
1 9

20 A

21 Q
7 7 A

2 1 Q

24 . A

23

covered your terms of employment?
No, sir. I don't recall having seen that copy.
Did you know that in December of 1965 the company 
and the clerks’ organization entered into an 
agreement that gave you and other Group 2 employee^ 
a seniority date in Group 1?
Did I know that?
Yes.
Yes , sir, I do.
How did you receive that information?
By word, by being informed.
Who informed you, do you remember?
Other employees.
Did you ever see a copy of the agreement that 
gave you that seniority date?
No, sir, I did not. You mean a copy of the 
seniority list?
Let's just ask you about the seniority list.
Did you see that?
I saw the list.
Did you see the agreement?
No, sir, I didn't see the agreement.
About when did you see the seniority list?
It was approximately, well, it had been posted 
sometime. I was told it was out, it was posted,

// G*



I but I didn’t know.
2 Q
3 A
4 Q
5 !;
6

i

7
8 A
9 Q
10 A
11 Q
12 A
13

i
•

14

1 5 Qi
16 i
17
18 A
19 Q
20 j A
21 ! Q
22

23

24 A
2 S Q

i

Was it posted in the Southern Pacific building?
It was. |
Incidentally, over the years, Mr. Bradley, isn’t 
it correct that at least once a year a seniority 
list or lists were put up in the Southern Pacific !I
building?
At least once a year?
Yes, sir.
No, sir, it is not.
How often were they put up?
Well, sometimes it was every other year. It 
wasn’t once a year. It was approximately a year 
and a half or within the next year.
When no seniority lists were posted, were the 
employees generally interested in going and 
looking at them and checking their own date?
Some of them were.
Were you interested or not?
No, sir, I was not.
I see. Did you know, Mr. Bradley, at least twenty 
years ago that the company considered your job 
title in the mail room to be mail room porter? 
That’s right.
Now, going back to the question of seniority,



88
1

2

3

4

5

6 A

7

8

9

1 0 Q

1 1

1 2  j

1 3

1 4 A

1 5  j Q
i

\ A

1 7 Q

1 8

1 9

2 0 ! A
2 1 Q

2 2

2 3 A
2 4 Q

prior to 1966 didn't you know that if you had 
transferred to another group, one of the so-calledij
clerical jobs, that you would have retained your 
seniority in Group 2 where your mail room job was 
located?
I was told by Mr. L. M. Greater that it would not.
I could not go back to Group 2 until I had 
exercised my rights all the way down the line 
in Group 1.
All right, sir. I think for the Court’s benefit 
we ought to clear up a little bit about Group 1 
and Group 2. Is it correct that your job in the 
mail room was considered a Group 2 seniority job? 
Is it correct? i(
Yes.
It was.
And there were other jobs that were considered 
to be within seniority Group 2, without going 
into detail?
There were other jobs in Group 2.
There were additional jobs that were considered 
to be Group 1 seniority jobs, is that correct?
In Group 2?
No, sir. I am leaving that and going to Group 1. 
Group 1 consisted of a number of different jobs

A  /  C L .



89
1
2 I A
3 Q
4 ;

I5 |
i

6 A
ni Q
8

9

10

11 I
12 | A
13 j Q
14 A

15 |

16 I
17 Q
18

20 A

21 I Q

Zi  A

24 Q
J a

that were grouped together for seniority purposes?
.

That is true.
The jobs that you gave us earlier as comparable 
to yours, control clerk and those other clerk 
jobs, for example, were in Group 1, weren’t they? I 
That’s right. I
Isn’t it correct that Mr. Greater told you if you 
did bid into a Group 1 job, and if there was a 
layoff, that you would have to exercise your 
Group 1 seniority as far as you could before you 
could then bump back into Group 2?
No, sir, that is not.
Well, tell me what he said to you?
He told me that I would have to wait until I 
exercised, go all the way down the line before 
I could go back to Group 2.
All right. You would have to go all the way down 
the line in Group 1 before you could go back to 
Group 2?
That’s right.
Is that substantially what he told you?
And then probably within a period of time I would 
lose that seniority in Group 2 altogether.
When did Mr. Greater tell you that?
When he told me that? Was after the posting of

/ 7 a  a.



1
2

*
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 3
it*
17

18
1 9

20

21

"» >
A -  Am

24
23

90
that seniority list. I talked with him on the 
sixth floor when he had told me that if I was not | 
satisfied in the mail room, why didn’t I bid on

!

one of the other jobs. I told him that I would 
not because I would take a chance on losing all 
of my seniority, and probably lose my job. I 
would be bumped around and have to go to the shop 
or some other place, and Mr. Greater said that

iwas right.
Q Mr. Greater said that you would be bumped around 

and lose your job, correct?

BY THE COURT:
Q I take it in the event of a layoff, the youngest 

employee, I mean the man with the least seniority, 
would be the first to go?

A That's right.
Q So the reason that you were so interested in 

staying in Group 2, where you had so much 
seniority, was to assure yourself, regardless 
of how often a layoff came about, that you would 
always have a job there. Is that a fair statement?

l

A That's ri<rht . If I had been given my seniority 
back to where it should have been, I would have 
bid on a job in Group 1.

/7/o



Now, at the time that you had these conversations 
with Mr. Greater, was that about in 1966 when you ' 
joined Local 589?

:

No, sir. That’s when we were put into Group 1, 
in 1966.
When was it that you had these conversations 
with him about transferring from the Group 2 
job to a Group 1 job?
That was after the posting of this 1966, combining 
of Group land 2 in 1966 seniority.
What he told you was, if I understand it, that if 
you transferred from Group 2, from a Group 2 job 
to a Group 1 job, your seniority then would 
begin in Group 1, which meant, of course, you 
would not have any, and if there was a layoff |
in the Group 1 job, you would then have to revert 
back to your Group 2 seniority that you had had 
before. Is that what I understand?
No, sir, it is not.
Tell me just how it did work?
He told me that I would have to go all the way 
down the line.
What does that mean?
Down the line in Group 1 to the last man.
You would go down. Okay.



1
2

3
4
3
6

7
8
9

10

11
12

13

14
1 3

16
17

18
19

20
21
22
2 3

24.
■'i —

92
A D o w n  the line to the last man. And there w a s  a

| j
p r o b a b i l i t y  somebody would bid on my job in the 
mail room, Group 2, that had more seniority than 
I had and I would be out of a job.

Q  So what you are really complaining about is this, 
that in the event of a change from Group 2 to 
G r o u p  1, you wouldn’t have been allowed seniority 
for all of those years in Group 2?

A T h a t ’s right.
I

Q That is r e a l l y  what you are complaining about here^, 

is it not? 

j A Yes, sir.
j lQ And was that a provision of the union contract |

as to how the seniority was to be calculated?
A Well, we were discriminated against.

j

Q I did not ask you that. I say was this method 
of determining seniority under Group 1 and 
G r o u p  2 a portion of the contract between the 
railroad and the union? 

j A Well, I never did see the contract. !
Q You do not know?I
A I d o n ’t know.

Q Whe r e  did you get the idea that this is the way
!

it w o r k e d ?

A Mr. G r e a t e r  told me. )



93
1 Q
2 j A

3 Q
4 A
5

6

7 BY
8 Q
9

1 0 A

1 1

1 2 Q
1 3 A

1 4 Q
1 5

1 6 i

1 7 A
1 8 Q
1 9

20 j1 AI
21 Q
-> *>

|
2 1 i
24

25

And who was Mr. Greater?
He was local chairman of 589.
Of your union?
My union, yes.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. BURCH:
Mr. Bradley, were you at all curious about what 
the labor contract said on this question?
I was, and I tried to get one and see it, but I 
could n’t.
You could not get a copy of the labor contract?
I could not.
Did you ever see one of these blue books like 
I have in my hand here, a blue contract, floating 
around the building?
I saw a fellow with one, but —
Didn’t you know that these are readily available 
to anyone that wanted one, Mr. Bradley?
I did not know that.
Mr. Bradley, let me ask you a little bit now about 
some of your supervisory functions. You told us 
about an occasion when you, as you have put it, 
reprimanded Mr. Donald Pitts. Would it be fair



to state that Mr. Pitts didn’t appreciate or 
really accept graciously your reprimand?
Well, I, being the head of a department, I think 
that was my duty.

THE COURT: But Pitts didn't like 
it, he is the man that came after you 
with a knife?

THE WITNESS: That's right.
THE COURT: He did not accept it i 

gracefully, that is what counsel asked i 
you?

THE WITNESS: That's right. !
(By Mr. Burch.) As a matter of fact, have you 
had other friction with people in the mail room
because in effect you tried to boss them around? 
No, sir.
You got along perfectly with all of them?
Sometimes they wouldn't agree with what my 
decision was, but I was interested in carrying 
out the duties of my work, seeing that all of 
the jobs were performed efficiently and the mail 
was done correctly, and sometimes they didn’t 
want to do that.
Is it not fair to say that most of the men that 
worked with you in there were not really willing



1
?

3 A
4 Q
5  j
6

7
8 A
9 Q
10 A
11 Q
1 2  !

13 A
I

14 I

j

17 Q
i« A

20 i Q
21 |

2 ̂ Qj
24
2- ' A

95’
to accept the fact that you were their boss or 
supervisor?

I
No, that is not true.

i
Now, let me ask you about days off. Is it your 
testimony that you actually told some of the other 
mail room porters that they could take a day off 
and they did so? I
I told them that they could take a day off?
Yes, sir.
No, sir, I did not say it that way.
What are the facts? What happened when people 
wanted to take a day off?
They would say they wanted to be off for a certain: 
day. If I felt that it was all right and the mail 
had been light, we wouldn’t have too much to do, 
all right. I would talk to Mr. Markham about it.

IAnd you would?
J

No, I would tell them it was all right to go on
•and then I would tell Mr. Markham.

And you would tell the employee to take off and 
that would be the last he would hear about it?
That’s right.
What was Mr. Markham’s position at the time you 
are telling us about?
He was manager of the central mailing and

/ 7C,



96
1
2 Q

1
3
4
5 A
6 Q
7 A
8 Q
9

10 A
11 Q
12 A
13 Q
14 A
y it
16

17 Q
18 ! A 
iv Q
20 j 

2. | A
2 2  j Q
23 A|
24 Q
25

duplicating bureau.
Now, did you understand that it was his responsi
bility to see to the proper operation of the mail j 
room as well as the duplicating bureau?
It was.
Was he considered a supervisor by the company?
He was.
Was he covered by the labor agreement with the
c l e r k s ?

No, sir, he was not.
When did Mr. Markham leave that position?
I don’t know the year when Mr. Markham retired.
Do you know about how long ago it was?
Oh, I don’t know. I am afraid to say the exact 
date. It was approximately five or ten years, 
somewhere along in there.
Five or ten years ago?
No, after 1944.
Did you recognize Mr. Markham as your superior 
and your supervisor?
I did.
Who succeeded Mr. Markham as your supervisor?
Mr. A . J . Moore.
At the time that you retired, did Mr. Moore have 
the supervision of the mail room, the duplicating

>77*-



functions and the machine repair function?
He was manager of the central mailing and 
duplicating bureau.
How many people worked in the duplicating bureau, 
do you know?
I do. Let’s see, there was Mr. Tate. We won't 
consider Mr. Tate, he was assistant to Mr. Moore. 
Mrs. Tate and Mr. Tate and two in the typewriter 
bureau, not including Mr. Moore, and those of us 
in the mail room, myself and three others.
Well, would it be correct that Mr. Moore had the 
supervision of approximately seven people, 
including yourself?
That's true.
How many times did you interview employees who 
were being considered for employment?
How many times I interviewed an employee?
Yes, sir.
Well, each employee was interviewed once.
Did you interview each employee that entered the 
mail room during the time you worked there?
During that time I did.
Was this before or after they started to work, 
or do you know?
Before they started to work.



1
4m

3

4

5
<•>
7
8
9
10
11

1 2

13

14

15
16
1 7

18
1 Q

21

22

23

24
2 5

_________________________________________________ ________ 98
Q You know if they had already been selected for

the mail room or not?
A I did not. ■ I

THE COURT: What counsel is asking ; 
you, did you determine whether or not 
the railroad was going to hire them?

THE WITNESS: I was recommending 
them and accepting them. One man in 
particular came in --

THE COURT: I am not asking you 
about one in particular. He is asking 
you about the fact that when new people

iapplied for a job, who made the selectioji?
THE WITNESS: I did.
THE COURT: And if you gave the wor#, 

they got the job?
THE WITNESS: That’s right. |
THE COURT: If you turned them down, 

they did not get the job?
THE WITNESS: That’s right.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Did you ever turn anybody down,
Mr. Bradley?

A No, sir, I did not.
Q Who did you discuss these new men with, who did 

you talk to about them?

/7f<u



99
1 A

2 Q

3
4 A
5
6 Q
7
8

9

1C A
11 Q

12
13 A«
14

1 3 Q

16

17 AiI
18 j

19

20 ;

2 1 Q

22
2 i

24 i

- A

Mr. Markham.
Do you know whether or not Mr. Markham talked

.
to these men himself?
After I had talked with them, after I had talked 
with Mr. Markham.
Do you know whether the position of mail room 
porter was one that under the union contract 
was required to be posted so that the employees 
could bid for it?
That’s true.
And in fact men who entered that mail room bid 
on that job under the contract?

I
This was before we went into the union that I
interviewed the men.
.

After you went in the union in 1954, people bid 
in there under the union contract? |
They bid in there and we didn’t have any say as 
to whether they were coming in or not. I didn’t 
have anything to do with that. They bid on the

i
job.
Before that time, did the men who came into that 1
office come in as new employees of the company 
or were they men who had worked elsewhere for the 
company?
Had worked elsewhere.



1
2
3

4
5
6
nt

8
9

10

11

12

13

14
% **k *>

1 "fA .

18
19

20
2 !
22

23

2 3

100

Q For the company?
A I mean for the company.
Q So they were transferring 

P a c i f i c  organization?
jobs within the Southern

1
A That’s true.

THE COURT: Is this a convenient
place to stop for lunch?

MR. BURCH: Yes, sir. I may be
able to shorten my cross examination.

THE COURT: Okay. Recess until
2:00, then, ladies and gentlemen, and 
be back approximately at that time, 
please.

(Noon recess.)

THE COURT: Be seated, please.
Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Bradley, just a few questions;, 

please, sir. You told us earlier about a conversaj- 
tion you say you had with Mr. Greater in which he 
told you that your job was not porter’s work and i
that he would do something about it. Would you 
tell us again what took place in that conversation^ 

A That was Mr. Hudson also.

/ <)’/ --(L,



101
1 Q

2

3 A
4 Q
5 A

6 Q
7 A

8 Q
9

1 0 A
1 1

1 2 Q
1 3

1 4 A
1 ^ Q
16

17 1 A
1 8 Q
1 9 A
2 0  ;iji
21

22
2 3 !

24

Well, was Mr. Hudson at one time the local 
chairman?
Yes, sir.

iiDo you know when he left that job?
The year?
Yes, sir.
No, sir, I do not know.
Well, was it in the neighborhood of twenty years 
ago or less?
No, sir, it was not. It was, I imagine, about 
five or six years before my retirement.
Now, Mr. Greater became local chairman five or 
six years before you retired, is that right?
Yes, sir.
I am asking you now about the conversation you 
said you had with Mr. Greater?
All right, sir.
Will you tell us about that, please?
I talked with Mr. Greater about my classification 
and rate, and he told me that he knew it was not 
porter work, and he had been in the mail room and 
looked at us performing our duties and that it was 
not porter work, it was clerical work. But we 
were carried as porters and there was nothing he 
could do.



Well, I think earlier you said something about 
him saying if you joined the union he would get 
it corrected. Is that what he said or not?
Did I misunderstand?
That was Mr. Hudson who said that, and Mr. Pat 
Gibson also said that.
I just want to ask you now about the ones you 
told us about earlier. Mr. Hudson is the one 
who said he would get that corrected, is that 
your testimony?
Yes.
When did he say that to you?
That was before his retirement, I mean before he 
gave up his job as local chairman.
Was it before your jobs in the mail room were 
covered by the clerks’ agreement?
It was before, yes, before we were covered by the ■ 
clerks’ agreement.
And your job became covered by the agreement in 
1956, did it not?
’54.
All right, sir. Now, when you talked to 
Mr. Greater, can you tell us about when you 
talked to him?
It was about five years before my retirement.



1
2
3
4

5
6

7
8

9

LO
11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
2 l
2 2

23

24
2 5

__________________ _________________________ ____ 103
That was about 1965 or 1964, between '64 and ’65.

Q When you talked to Mr. Hudson about your job, was 
that about the same time that you went to|
Mr. Brian Adams to talk about your job?

i A That was, yes, sir.
Q So your recollection is when you talked to j

Mr. Adams it was around sometime before 1954, 
before you came into the union?

i
A That's right.
Q All right, sir. Just one last question. I direct 

your attention to the little news item that 
appeared in the —  or some bulletin when you went 
into the Navy. Do you recall that?

A Ido.
>I .
Q For your convenience I will show you my copy of it,
A Yes, sir.

|
j Q In what kind of publication did that appear?
A That appeared in the Southern Pacific Bulletin.

;
Q Do you know who Nancy Sharp is, the correspondent?1
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Who j.3 she?
A She was the correspondent and all I know is her

I name was Sharp and she transferred to San
Francisco.

Q Did she talk to you before this appeared in the

/ f y c



104
bulletin?
Yes, sir.
Did she interview you, in other words, and find 
out about your going into the Navy and so forth? 
Yes, sir.
Incidentally, was she a clerk who was within the 
union bargaining unit, or do you know?
She was.
Did she ask you about your job at that time and 
what your job was?
No, sir, she did not. She knew that.
So you didn’t talk to her about what you did or 
where you worked?
No, sir, she knew all about it, because she 
worked, I think it was, in the public relations 
department.

MR. BURCH: Pass the witness.

j
:

j



1
z

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11
12

13

14

15
16
17
18
IQ
20
2 l
22
2 3

24
25

__________________________________  105
CROSS EXAMINATION

I
BY MR, HIGHSAW:

Q Mr. Bradley, would it be right to say that you 
became a member of Lodge 589 around December of

A
Q
A
Q

Q

A

Q
A

Q

A

1965?
I think it was before then.
You think it was before that?
I think it was before ’65.
Now, during the period that you were a member of 
Lodge 589 prior to the time you retired, was that 
an integrated lodge, did it have both members of 
the Negro and white race?
Before I joined?
No, Lodge 589 during the period of time you were 
a member?
When I was a member?

i'

Of Lodge 589?
It was integrated.
Would you say there were approximately a hundred 
Negro members of that lodge while you were a
member?
There were.
Now, you have referred to Mr. L. M. Greater as
local chairman of that lodge. Does that mean-------------------------------------------------

/ V(c



106
*

1 that b e  was the chairman of the grievance
!

2 committee of the lodge? |

3 I A N o ,  sir, it does not. It means that he was the
4 local chairman.
-5 Q You do not know him as chairman of the grievance
6 committee, then? i

7 A N o , sir, I do not.
8 Q Was he elected to the position he held by the
9 lodge membership?

10 A As local chairman?
i

l i Q Yes. 1
I

12 A He was.
1 3 Q Do you know whether the grievance committee of
1 4 the lodge had any Negro members on it? 1

j

i

1 5 A The grievance committee? 1

1 6 Q Yes, Lodge 589.
1 7 A Well, each floor, each department, I think it was,
1 8 had a grievance committee. l

1 9 Q And speaking of the committee of Lodge 589 now.
20 Is it correct that it had five members?
2 1 A I don't know about that grievance committee of
22 five - -  589. i

2 5 Q You don't know whether it had among those five
2 4 members two Negro members?
2 5 A I don't know about the grievance committee of 589.



107

1
2

3
4

7

9  

10 
11 
12

1 3  A

1 4  Q

15 A
i* Q
17 A
18 
19

Mr. Bradley, you have identified and there has 
been placed in the record as Plaintiff's Exhibits 
9 and 10. Exhibit 9 is a letter which you wrote 
to Mr. Greater on July 2, and Exhibit 10 is a 
letter which you received from Mr. Greater on 
December 10, 1967 referring to your complaint.
Now. I have here a document which purports to be 
a letter from Mr. Greater to you referring to your 
letter of July 2 as well as a letter from you of 
July 7, and responding to those two, and I wish 
you would take a look at it and see if you can 
identify that letter?
I do.
That is dated August 13, 1967? 
That’s right.
And you received that letter?
I did, yes, sir.

ii

MR. HIGHSAW: I would like to have 
this marked for identification as Local

2 0 589 Exhibit 1.
I

Q Now, Mr. Bradley, is it correct that that letter 
22 refers to a letter which you wrote to Mr. Greater j
2 *  o n  J u l y  2 and July 7, 1967 and then this letter
, 4  o f  A u g u s t  13 that has been marked for identifica-
s tion as Local 589 Exhibit 1 goes on to say that



1

?
3

4

3

6

•7/
8

9

10

11
12
13
14

1 3
18
1 7

18
19

20
2 I
22

23

24
2 3

L O S

these letters were read at our lodge meeting the 
night of July 11, 1967 and they were recommended 
to be turned over to our system board for their 
handling?

A I remember that. In fact, I was in the meeting.
Q You were at the meeting when these letters were

read? i
A I was at the meeting.
Q In other words, your letters of July 2, which 

was identified here, and the letter of July 7 
was read at the meeting and this is the action 
taken with respect to them?

A That's true.
Q Now, when it says the letters will be transmitted

to the system board for handling, what is your
.understanding of what the system board was?

A The system board, my understanding, is the
general chairman, who was Mr. P. J. Gibson.

THE COURT: General chairman of
what?

THE WITNESS: Of Local 589.
Q (By Mr. Highsaw.) Your understanding is he was 

an officer of 589?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I have here, Mr. Bradley, a letter which



1 j
2

3
4

|

5
j

6
ni

6 A
9

10 ! Q
11 A
12
13

14

15
h

16 |
17 t

;

18
19

20
>1

Li A
23 Q

j

24
25

_____________________________________________________ ________  1 0 9

purports to be a document, a letter addressed to
you by Mr. Gibson as general chairman dated
July 11, 1967, referring to a letter which you
wrote to Mr. Gibson on June 9, 1967, and I would

:

like to ask you to take a look at this document 
and see if you recall that and if you received 
such a letter?
This letter was written to me in regards to a 
previous letter that I had written, yes, sir.
And that concerned your seniority date?
That’s right. Yes, I remember that letter.

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, I would |
like to have this document marked for 
identification as Local 589 Exhibit 2.

jMr. Bradley, is it correct that in that exhibit, I
the letter dated July 11, 1967, which we have 
marked as Local 589 Exhibit 2, that General 
Chairman Gibson rejected your claim saying you 
had the correct seniority date in each of the 
groups in Seniority District 1. Is that what 
the letter in substance says?
That’s right.
Now, since Mr. Gibson’s letter referred to your
earlier letter of June 9, 1967, I have here a

' •.

document which purports to be a copy of an earlier
<;



no

3

4

5
6 A
7

8 

9

10 i

11
12

13

14 

1 5
16 |
17

18

letter which you wrote to Mr. Gibson, except for 
this handwriting in the left-hand corner here.
I don't know who put that on. But leaving that 
handwriting out, is that the letter of June 9,
1967 which you wrote to Mr. Gibson?
This is correct. I remember that letter.

MR. HIGHSAW: I would like to have 
this document marked for identification 
as Local 589 Exhibit 3.

At this time I would like to offer 
into evidence the documents marked for 
identification as Exhibit Local 589 I
1, 2, 3.

THE COURT: Have you had time to 
see them, Ms. McDonald? I

MS. MCDONALD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. McDONALD: No, I have no

objection.
20 THE COURT: Received.
21 ! Q (By Mr. Highsaw.) Mr. Bradley, you identified
2 2 and put into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11,
23 | a letter which was addressed to you by Mr. C. L.
2 4 1 Denis, International President of the Brotherhood
2 s °f Railway and Airline Clerks. Do you recognize

/9<



Ill
that? j
I do remember this letter and I received it.
Now, Mr. Bradley, the last paragraph of the

j
document identified as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11 
states that Mr. Denis had received a copy of 
a letter which General Chairman Gibson had 
addressed to you dated January 23, 1968, and 
Mr. Gibson goes on to state that he feels that 
the letter from Mr. Gibson had made full response 
to all the points you had raised. Now, I have 
here a document which is dated January 23, 1968 
and purports to be a letter addressed to you by 
Mr. Pat Gibson as general chairman. Would you 
take a look at that and see if that is the letter,' 
a true and correct copy of the letter of 
January 23 sent to you by Mr. Gibson?

|It is, yes, sir.
MR. HIGHSAW: I would like to have 

this letter marked as Local 589 Exhibit jl. 
Now, Mr. Bradley, I have one other document here 
I would like for you to take a look at and see if 
you can identify it. I have a further document 
that is dated March 28, 1968 that is addressed 
to you by Mr. J. V. Gates as general chairman, 
and it refers to a letter which you had written



112

2

A

4

5 Q
6

7 A

8 Q
9 A

1 0 Q

1 1

1 2

1 3 A
1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8 Q

1 9

2 0

2 1

22

2 >

2 4

2 5

to Mr. Gates on March 11, 1968. May I ask you 
who Mr. Gates is or was?
Mr. Gates succeeded Mr. Gibson as general 
chairman of Local 589.
In other words, he held the job which Mr. Gibson 
had held?
Which Mr. Gibson held.
Did Mr. Gibson retire, do you know?
Mr. Gibson retired.
Would you take a look at this document which is 
dated March 27, 1968 and see if it is a copy of 
a letter which you received from Mr. Gates?
I do.

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, I would
like to have marked for identification ! 
as Local 589 Exhibit 5 this document 
dated March 27, 1968. j

Now, in these letters for Mr. Gibson, which is 
dated January 23, 1968 and has been marked for

;

identification as Local 589 Exhibit 4, is that 
a four page letter which sets forth Mr. Gibson’s 
reasons why, in his opinion, you didn’t have a 
valid claim?

MS. McDGNALD: I will have to 
object to that question. I don’t think

/ 9 3 < *



1

2
3

4
5
6
7
8 
9

10

11

12

13
14

i 5 
16

17
18 
19

20
21

22

23
2-1

1 13

Mr. Bradley is the proper person to 
conclude --

THE COURT: I think that is well 
taken.

Q (By Mr. Highsaw.) I will ask if that is a four
page letter?

A Is this a four page letter?
Q Yes.
A It is.

MR. HIGHSAW: That is all I have,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you offering 
these last documents?

MR. HIGHSAW: If counsel has had a 
chance to look at them. The letter 
received from Mr. Gibson which is dated 
January 23, 1968 has been identified as 
Local 589 Exhibit 4. I will offer that.

THE COURT: Have you seen them all?
MS. McDONALD: I have read them.

I have no objection to their introduction 
as being letters that were sent, but I 
would have to object to the truth of 
some of the statements that are made, 
particularly in the letter dated



1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8 
9

10

11

1 2

13
34

15
16

17

18
19

20  

21

January 23, 1968 referring to 
Mr. Bradley’s request having the effect 
of causing injustice on others. But I j 
have no objection to either of them.

THE COURT: All right. They will 
be received. I will not consider them 
for the truth of the recitation.

MR. HIGHSAW: That will be both 
four and five, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Are you 
through with the witness?

MR. HIGHSAW: Yes.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MS. McDONAID: Yes, Your Honor, 

just a few questions.

24

/ f f



REDIRECT EXAMINATION 1

BY MS. MCDONALD:
i; I
Q Mr. Bradley, when you had a problem which you

wanted resolved by your union, who did you look
to?

A I looked to the local chairman.
Q Now, what is his name?
A Mr. L. M. Greater.
Q Prior to Mr. Greater who was the man?
A E. M. Hudson.
Q If you had a grievance, you would go to one of 

these two men?
A That’s true.

i

Q In your opinion, did you conclude that either|
Mr. Greater or Mr. Hudson, as his predecessor,i
would be able to resolve your problems?

A Well, I thought that was the proper source, that 
was the proper person to go to.

Q Now, when you were classified as a mail porter
from 1944 when you took over Mr. King’s job, were|
you making more money than the other mail porters? 

A I was making approximately thirty dollars more 
than the other men.I

MS. McDONALD: Prior to the lunch



1

3
4

3
6
n<
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

18
19

20

2 1
22

23

Hr

2 ̂

116
break I had offered into evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 5, and the 
Court reserved ruling on them.

THE COURT: Yes, because I didn't 
know where it came from, or at least it 
didn't appear that the witness knew.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Now, Mr. Bradley, referring
to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 5, four being the 
record of retired employee, and five being the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation half-rate 
order, would you tell me how you acquired i
Exhibit 4?

A Yes. What is four? This is four about my 
retirement?

Q Yes.
A Well, I did not ask for this. This was sent to I

me by Mr. C. A. Pretty, who is manager of the 
pension bureau, Southern Pacific Company in San 
Francisco.

THE COURT: That is what you told
;

me before lunch, is it not, and you con
cluded that was the case because his 
name was on the envelope on the outside.

THE WITNESS: That’s right. It was 
sent to me by him. It was the return

/?; . .



117
address, Southern Pacific Company,
C. A. Pretty, San Francisco.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, do you have any other way! 
of finding out whether or not Mr. Pretty is, as 
you feel he is, an employee of Southern Pacific 
Railroad?
I send all of my retirement, I mean insurance 
money to Mr. Pretty.
How do you address your letters to Mr. Pretty?
I address it to Southern Pacific Company,
Mr. C. A. Pretty, Manager of the Pension Bureau,
San Francisco, California.

MS. McDONAID: Your Honor, again 
I offer in evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. 

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, we have the
Isame objection. I do not have anything 

to add except what I said earlier.
THE COURT: I think we are sort of 

making a mountain out of a molehill. I
I will consider it for what it is worth. ! 
It is received.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Referring to Exhibit 5, the 
half rate order, how did you obtain that?
I mailed a request to Mr. Pretty for transporta-

i

tion to Detroit, Michigan. We do not have passes



118

7

3
4 Q
5
6 A

7
8

9 Q

10

11 A

12
13 Q

14

15
16

17 A

18 ii

19

20 j

7  " *

23

24

any more, it is a rate order. So, I requested a 
rate order from Mr. Pretty in San Francisco to

.IDetroit, Michigan.
Did you write Mr. Pretty at the same address as 
you described before?

|
I wrote Mr. Pretty, Southern Pacific Company,
C. A. Pretty, Manager of Pension Bureau in

|
San Francisco, California.
And did you receive Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 in 
response to that request?
I received that rate order in response to my
request. I
Now, on the envelope containing this half rate

i
order was there the same information that was 
on the envelope sending you your record of retired 
employee?
Yes, sir, it was in the upper left-hand corner,

Ian envelope with the return Southern Pacific 
Company, C. A. Pretty, Manager, Pension Bureau,
San Francisco, California.

MS. McDONALD: I offer in evidence 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.

MR. BURCH: The same objection,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, now I have some

/??<^



1
■yu

3
4

3
b
7
8
9

10

11
12

13
14

1 c
In

1?
18
1 9

20

21

y y

23
24
1 “

119

Q

A
Q
A
Q

A

A
Q

A

let me see that, please, ma'am. Okay, 
it is received.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Earlier, Mr. Bradley, before 
lunch, I believe you were asked a question whether! 
or not race had a factor in your not transferring 
to Group 1. Do you recall that question?

II do.
Do you recall that your answer was no?
That’s right.
Now, do you feel that race was a factor in your 
being classified as a mail porter?
I do.

iMR. BURCH: Objection, Your Honor, 
as to his feeling. He is simply drawing! 
a conclusion. That is for the Court to ; 
decide.

THE COURT: It may be, but I will i 
let him answer it. ’

I do.
Do you feel the fact that if you wanted to 
transfer to Group 1, you would only have seniority! 
dated January 1, 1966 when you transferred, do you; 
feel that was because of your race?
I do.

MS. McDONALD: No further questions.



1

1

3

4

3
6
ni

8
9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 3
Hi
1 7

18
1 9

20

2 1
■? \im-

23

2 4

_  >

120
' 11 - ■ r'' •---------------1

THE COURT: I have just one or two.

I

BY THE COURT:
Q This question of transferring from Group 2 to

Group 1, that arose at the time that your union 
was absorbed by 589?

A That's right. Yes, sir.
Q And it was as a result of the contract between 

the railroad and Local 589 that this question 
of transferring from one seniority group to 
another arose, am I correct in that?

A No, sir.
Q Okay. Tell me.
A We could not transfer from Group 2 to Group 1. 

That was done by the union. The union placed 
all the employees in Group 2 and Group 1. They 
dovetailed us in there.

Q Now, what was your situation before you were
associated with 589?

A What was my situation before?
Q What group did you belong to, what were your 

seniority rights or your job rights?
A I was in Group 2.

c X .y j u



i

2
3
4

5
6
/
8
9

10

1 1
12

13
14

1 5
16

17
18
1 9

20
21
22

2 3

24
2 3

121

Q
A
Q
A
Q

A
Q

Q

And had been since 1944?
1954 when we joined the union.

.
Okay. You joined 1534?
That’s right, sir.
And was it as a result of the union agreement'
with the railroad in 1954 that you were a

.

Group 2 employee?
Yes, sir.
I see. And you remained in that status, that was 
the situation until 1966, wasn’t it?
That’s right. When the union and the company,
I don’t know, I didn’t see the contract, but they 
put all of the members in Group 2, those in the 
mail room, and in Group 1 giving us seniority date 
of January 1st, 1966, even though my seniority 
date was far earlier than that.
But you did not, you did not find that acceptable, 
you wanted to retain your earlier seniority date 
and stay in Group 2. Do I understand you to say
that ?
I wanted my earlier seniority date so I could 
exercise my rights in Group 1.
Would it be fair to say you wanted to have your 
cake and eat it too? You wanted to go to the new 
and different group, but you wanted your seniority

<2 -



1

2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

13
1 2

13

14

IS

16
17
18
19

20

21

22
23

•24
23

122

to date back from the original group?
A Well, Your Honor —
Q Just answer my question. Isn’t that really what 

you wanted?
A No, it is not.
Q Tell me what you did want now?
A I felt if I had used my seniority date of

January 1st, 1966 and bid on a job in Group 1 
I would

Q You told me that. You would lose your job when 
you had a layoff.

A That’s right. And I would be losing all those 
years.

Q So you thought it was to your advantage to stay 
in Group 2?

A Now, if I had my seniority back when I should have 
had it, 1934, then I would have been able to
exercise my right in Group 1, assuring me of a job,r
Had I bid on a job with January 1st, 1966 seniority,

'
somebody who was employed as late as December, 196$

| could have and would have —
Q They would have had seniority over you, would 

they not?
A They certainly would have, and I have no doubt 

I would be eventually out on the street.



1
->

3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
\ >
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
23

123

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

A
Q
A

! A

Q
A

Q

What other job classifications were Group 2 
classifications in the interval from 1954 until 
1966?
I don’t quite understand.
All right. You were classified as a mail porter? 
That’s right.
And that classification is a Group 2 job?
That's right.
And that began in 1954?
That's right.
What other jobs were Group 2 jobs other than mail
porter?
Well, the janitors.
All right.
And there were men at the station, mail porters, 
train porters.
Redcaps?
Not Redcaps, I mean porters that handle mail, put 
mail on the train and janitors around the depot, 
and some truck drivers from Group 2.
And that was essentially all of the Group 2 jobs? 
That's right, practically. There may be a few 
others, but that was the majority.
Well, now, you have told us that Local 589 was 
integrated the whole time you were in there, correct?

tJ- O <4.



1
2
3
4
5
6
ni

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

124
A That’s right.! | 
Q Had a substantial number of Negro members and ai

large number of white members, I am sure? 
i A And the only reason it was integrated, Your Honor,j 

was that they took us in from Group 2 and gave us 
the day of January 2, 1966. That was the cause of 
the integration.

! Q I don’t believe I understand what you are telling | 
me. You have been in 1534?

A That’s right.
Q Was it integrated?
A It was predominantly Negro.
Q Did it have as many white members as —

| A No, no whites.
Q No whites at all?I

j A No, sir.
Q Now, in '66 what happened was that an all Negro 

union was merged into 589?
A That’s true.

I Q I see.
A So that gave us more than a hundred Negro members 

in 589.
:

Q Prior to that time had 589 been exclusively
white?

A Exclusively white.



1
1

3
4

5

6

"f
i

8

9

10
11
12
13
14

1 5

16
17
if*.
19

20
2 I
22
23
24
*. *>

Q I see. I’m beginning to see a little bit what 
this is all about. For ten years you had two 
unions, one all white and one all black?

A That's right.
Q And in ’66 they merged?
A That is true.
Q You took up your grievances about this beginning 

date of your seniority with your union officials?
A That is true.
Q Wrote them letters and attending the meetings

and heard it discussed and that sort of thing?
A I first took it up with my official, meaning the 

manager of the duplicating bureau.
Q Well, whoever was the right man, you went through 

the union channels, did you not?
A Step by step, yes, sir.
Q And what satisfaction did you get, what was the

net result of that?
A None whatsoever.
Q Did they ever go to the railroad with this?
A Did they go to the railroad?
Q Did the union go to the railroad with it, do you 

know, undertaking to adjust it without success 
or simply treat it as a union matter?

A Well, I don’t know, Your Honor. I said this,



I
7

3
4

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17

18
19

20
2 !
22
2 *
24
2 ->

Q
A

126
I contacted, as I said a moment ago. I talked with 
Mr. Brian Adams, as I said a while ago. and he 
told me that it was not the railroad that was 
keeping us out. I mean keeping me from my proper 
classification and rate. It was the union. That's 
what Mr. Adams said in his office. i
When was this?
Prior to going into the union, and so then I 
talked with the union, Mr. Greater, and he said,
It is not the union that wants to keep you out,
it is the railroad." Now, there I am between

.

the devil and the deep blue sea. Neither one 
wanted to accept the responsibility, but we were 
out and never allowed to go in.

THE COURT: Anything else in the 
light of my questions?

MS. McDONALD : No, Your Honor, 
except that the contract effective 1956 
we were going to introduce later on, 
but perhaps this would help you to 
understand the groups.

THE COURT: I will have a look at 
it later.

THE WITNESS: May I say this, Your j 
Honor?

■J- -" t



THE COURT: Yes, you may.
THE WITNESS: They told me that 

Local 589 didn’t have anything to do 
with my grievance, that it had to come 
through the International. Now, we had 
no dealings with the International Lodge 
whatsoever. All of our dealings were 
with our local chairman, and from the 
local chairman, he would carry it on to 
the general chairman, and the general j 
chairman, if he saw fit, he would carry 
it on to the International where they 
had the Grand Lodge. But it never got J 
any further, as far as I know, and 
Mr. Pat Gibson and Mr. Gates did not j 
have any connection whatsoever with the 
International. And the only reason that 
I wrote to Mr. Denis was because I was 
going step by step. I wanted to prove 
I had written to Mr. Greater. I wrote j 
to the president of 589, I wrote to 
Mr. Pat Gibson and from there I wrote a 
letter to Mr. Denis.

THE COURT: That’s all, then, thank
you.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10
1 i
12
1 3

14

1 5

16

17

18
19

20
■y i

—•

23

24
24

128

MR. BURCH: Pardon me.
THE COURT: I thought you said you 

had nothing else.
MR. BURCH: I’m sorry.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Bradley, let me see here so I can understand 
one thing. You told us a few minutes ago when 
you went to see Mr. Brian Adams who, incidentally, 
is present at the table, is he not?

A I know him.
Q And he is and was the employee representative

of the company?
A He was.
Q And you told us you went to see him about the

classification and the rating of your job before 
your job was covered by the union contract. Now. 
you have also told us here that he told you that 
the company couldn’t do anything about that, it 
was up to the union. I want to ask you if you 
are sure about those facts?

--- ... — ■ . .... . . — I



I
>im
3
4
3
6
*7/
)3
9

10
1 1
1 2

1 3

14

1 5
IS
1 7

18
1 9

20

2 1

•> 7
23
24
2*

129
A I made an appointment to talk with Mr. Adams

through his chief clerk, Mr. Roberts, and I did
igo see Mr. Adams. We talked at length. And he 

said that it was not, he said he knew, after we 
talked about it, and I told him my duties in the I
mail room, all that I was doing, and he said,
"Yes, I know that is true and I realize it is 
not porter work." He had been down in the mail

i
iroom looking around, seeing upon my duties, and 

said there was nothing he could do, this has been 
going on for such a long time and in fact it had 
been going on since 1912, since the mail room was 
set up by C. A. King. He said, "Now, it is not 
the railroad that is holding you back on this, 
it is the union."

THE COURT: That was 1534, was it 
not? That was before you ever merged 
with 589?

THE WITNESS: I was trying to get 
my seniority.

THE COURT: Just answer my question^ 
It was 1534 rather than 589?

THE WITNESS: That’s right, sir.
THE COURT: Because that was before 

1966 when they merged?

J / O <K̂>



1 3 0
1
2 Q
3
4
3 A

6 Q
7
8

9 A

10 Q
11
12
13 A

14 Q

15
16 A

17 Q
16
19

20

21
;

22 A
23

;
Q

24
25 A

THE WITNESS: That’s right.
(By Mr. Burch.) And this was after your job came 
into the union bargaining group and you were 
covered by the union agreement, was it not?
Yes, sir.
Now, let me suggest that you may be in error in 
your date, and that when you talked to Mr. Adams 
it was around 1963. Is that possible?
I think it was before then.
Let me ask you if you recall around 1963 when 
Mr. Shepherd, a Negro employee, bid for and took 
a Group 1 job. Do you remember that?
I do.
And wasn't it about that same time that you went 
to talk to Mr. Adams?
I don’t think so.
All right, sir. Didn't Mr. Adams tell you when 
you came to talk to him that he couldn't do 
anything about changing your position to Group 1, 
that it was set up that way by the agreement with 
the union?
No, sir. May I say what he said?
Isn’t any different from what you have already 
told us?
It was not considering Group 1, I was talking

•Jt a



1
7im

3

4
5
6
*n/
8
9

10
11

12

13

14

1 3
16
1?

18
1 9

> ; ••

2 i

> >X.

2 1
2 4

2 3

131
about changing my rate and classification.

Q Didn’t he tell you that that could not be done 
because it was all established by the agreement 
with the union and there was no way to change 
that?

A He said there was nothing he could do.
Q All right, sir. Now, let me ask you a little

bit about your understanding of your seniority 
rights. You told us, I believe, that you studied 
electrical engineering and you studied theology?

A That’s true.
Q Are you a minister of a church?
A I have been, but I am on sick leave.
Q Do you read fairly extensively?
A Pardon?
Q Do you read a good bit?
A Not now.
Q Back at the time you worked with the company, were 

you interested in reading in general?
A I certainly was.
Q Didn’t you know in 1966 when the company and union 

merged these seniority lists, that you had the 
right to keep your seniority in Group 2 and in 
fact to accumulate seniority in Group 2 if you 
chose to take a job in Group 1?

2/ A



I
->

3
4
5
6
-i/
8
9

10
1 1
12
13
14

15
16
i ->
18
19

20
2 !
22

2 3

24

A That was not my understanding.
Q That was not your understanding. You did not

have any curiosity about what happened to your 
seniority if you moved into a Group 1 job?

MS. McDONALD: I object to the 
characterization of Mr. Bradley not 
having curiosity. I think he can ask 
him if he inquired about it.

THE COURT: I think it is legiti
mate cross examination.

A I was informed by Mr. Greater and Mr. B. ¥.
Gibson that I would lose my seniority in Group 2 
if I bid on a job in Group 1.

Q When did they inform you of that?
A After the institution of -- after January 1st, 

1966.
Q Did you just take their word for that and not 

check it any further?
A I thought their word was law.
Q And you just accepted their word?
A Accepted their word.

THE COURT: Are you suggesting 
that the contract was different, con
trary to what he has testified?

MR. BURCH: The contract is

* O



133f

i

3
4

5
6
7
8 
9

10 
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20 
21

23

24
25

completely to the contrary. The 
contract, even before ’66, at least as j 
early as 1963, provided an employee 
went from Group 1 to another would 
retain and accumulate seniority in the 
group from which he came.

THE COURT: In other words, he
I

could go up the ladder to a higher 
group, and as to the higher group I 
assume his seniority would begin when 
he began that classification, but if 
he got bumped in the higher classifica
tion he could still go back and have the, 
advantage of his long seniority in the

jlower classification.
MR. BURCH: He certainly could, 

and could bump anyone who was his junior.
THE WITNESS: Mr. P. W. Gibson 

informed me personally that that was not 
right. Mr. L. M. Greater told me the 
same thing, that when I bid on a job in 
Group 1 I would lose my seniority rights 
in Group 2. I would have to exercise 
my rights all the way down in Group 1
before I could be considered for any job;

___________________________________ J



1
2
3

4

5
6
<
8
9

10
11

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5
16
17

18
19

20

21

?
2 *
24

1 3 4
- _ _ _ _ _  .  — — — . j

in Group 2.
Q (By Mr. Burch.) Let’s just take it right there, 

if we can. I think that is basically right. You 
did understand that if you went up to Group 1 
and there was a force reduction, you had to use 
your seniority and take any job you could in 
Group 1 as long as there were jobs available.
Isn’t that your understanding?

A I could take a job in Group 1.
Q You had to take any job in Group 1 that was

Iavailable to you on the basis of your Group 1 
seniority?

A That’s right.
Q Before you left that group?
A That’s right.
Q Now, once you got to the point that you couldn't

bump anybody in Group 1, you knew you could go 
back to Group 2 on your Group 2 seniority?

A No, sir.
Q Now, you said you understood you had to exercise 

your rights in Group 1 before you could be con
sidered for Group 2. What did you mean by that?

A Suppose somebody in Group 2 had bid, older than 
I was, had bid on my job. I could not get that 
job, and all of the white furloughed people that



135
l

3

4 Q
5 A

6 Q
i

8
9

10 A
i  1 Q
12

1 3

1 4 A
1 5 Q
1 6 A
1 7 Q
1 8

1 9 A
20 Q
21

2 3 A
2 4 Q

had been furloughed, they would have to come 
back before I could even be considered for a job 
in Group 2.
Now, did Mr. Greater or Mr. Gibson tell you that? 
That's true.
Let’s just talk about white people for a minute. 
Do you remember back in '62 there was a lot of 
white people who were laid off in Southern 
Pacific Company?
I do.
And didn’t that result in merger between the 
old Texas & Louisiana Railroad and the Southern 
Pacific Company?
Not necessarily.
Or do you know?
Not necessarily.
There were probably hundreds of people laid off 
around 1962, weren’t there?
That is true.
And a lot of those people were laid off out of 
Group 2 and went out the door and out to their 
other employment?
Other employment, that’s true.
And they did not have the right to use their 
Group 1 seniority to bump you in your Group 2



1

7

3
4
3
6
4

8
9

10

11
12

13

14

1 3
l 6
17

18
19

20
2!
22

23

24
23

136
.job, did they?

A The reason for that is they didn’t have enough 
seniority. In fact, I was the oldest.

Q Whether they had seniority or not, they couldn't
touch your job, could they, because it was another 
seniority group?

A I don’t quite understand that.
Q You knew that those people in Group 1 in ’62 

couldn’t bump into your group, could they?
A That’s right.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, you just said you were 

one of the oldest employees in Group 2 who was I
still working in Group 2 in January of 1966, 
weren’t you?

A That’s true.
Q And Group 1 people in January of ’66 were given 

Group 2 seniority as of January 1, 1966, weren’t 
they?

THE COURT: I am lost now. You will 
have to say that again. This is ’66

i
when the union’s merger occurred?

MR. BURCH: I think the merger,
Your Honor, was actually before that, 
and I don’t know whether it is related
or not.



1
y

3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13
34

15

16
37

18
19

20
V «I

2 3
24

2 s

1 3 7
THE COURT: Was this the provision 

of a new contract?
MR. BURCH: There was a new con-

I
tract that merged the seniority lists 
as of January 1, 1966. Maybe Mr. Bradley 
can confirm this.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) As of January 1, 1966, everyone 
in Group 2 was given a seniority date in Group 1 
as of that date?

A Everybody in Group 2 had seniority in Group 1 as 
of January 1st, 1966. But that merger was before 
'66. )

Q The merger of the union was before '66?
A That's right.
Q Let's just stay with January 1, ’66. On that same 

day, everybody in Group 1 was given seniority in 
Group 2, weren’t they?

A No, sir.
THE COURT: As of January 1?

Q As of January 1, 1966?
A No, sir.
Q What is the basis for your answer "No”, how do 

you know that didn’t happen?
A Because I saw the list.
Q You knew in January of 1966 and thereafter that

3*■ / if



1
>
5
4

3
6
7

8
9

10

11

1 2

13

1 4

15
16
17

19

20
7 l
2 2

23
24
2 5

1 3 8
Negro employees were bidding to and moving into 
Group 1 jobs, did you not?

A I did.
Q And in fact, some Negro employees before January 1„ 

1966 had bid into Group 1 jobs, hadn't they?
A That's right. Pardon me, please --
Q Let me ask the question, please. Ms. McDonald

will ask you some others if she wants to.
As I understand your testimony, you are 

saying that because you thought you would lose 
all your Group 2 seniority, that is the reason 
you didn't bid the Group 1 jobs. Is that your 
test imony?

A I didn't only think that, I was told that by 
Mr. Greater and Mr. Gibson.

Q In fact, Mr. Bradley, you were rather proud of 
your job in the mail room, were you not?

A Well. I was proud of my job, so much so that I 
wanted to stay there and I enjoyed my work and
I enjoyed those that I was working with. But
naturally, I am like anybody else, if I could
advance I would want to advance. But I had to
consider the hereafter. I could not afford to

i

lose thirty-two years' seniority taking a chance 
on going into a higher group, into Group 1, and

j JQ/



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10
1 I
12

13
14

15

16
17
18

19

20
2 1
22
2.)

24
25

1 3 9
taking chances on losing all my rights and all

. j

my seniority and being bumped out of a job, losing 
everything that I had.

Q In fact, Mr. Bradley, in all honesty, is it not
the case that what you asked the union representa
tives, and what you asked Mr. Adams, was that you 
be permitted to stay in your mail room job, have 
the title changed, and have the rate made higher. 
Wasn't that what you wanted?

A No, sir. I wanted them to change my classificatioh,
■

correct my rate and permit me to bid on another 
j ob.

Q Well, did you ask Mr. Adams to permit you to bid 
on another job?

A If he had given me my seniority, I could have 
bid on another job if I had asked him or not.

Q Mr. Adams never told you you could not bid on 
another job, did he?

jA No, sir, he did not.
Q In fact, every bit of correspondence you had with

:

the union, the charge you filed with the Equal 
Opportunity Commission asked that you be permitted 
to stay in your job in the mail room and be given 
a different title and higher rate. Now, that is 
really what you wanted, was it not?

U . o



140

3
4

5 
8

5
9

10
1 1
12

13

! 4

17
18 
19

20
2 1

c  y

-  -4-

A No, sir, I wasn’t concerned about staying in the 
mail room. All I wanted was reclassification and 
my correct seniority, and the rate according to 
the classification.

Q Did you ever say to the company or to the union 
or to the Equal Opportunity Employment that you 
were not permitted to bid for a higher job?

A Did I ever say to the Equal Opportunity Commission! 
or to the company or to the union?

Q Yes.
A That I was not permitted to bid to a higher job?
Q Yes.
A No, sir, I did not.
Q When you got ready to retire, did you go down to

the Railroad Retirement Board here in the Federal 
Building and make application?

A I did.
Q Did you talk to someone there and make out some 

forms?
A I did.
Q Let me show you a blank form. Up at the top it

is labeled "Employee’s Relinquishment of Rights," | 
and I will ask you to look that over and tell us 
whether you made out a form like that in applying 
for your pension?



141
1
7—
3
4

5
6

7
8
Q

10

11 
12

1 3

1 4

1 3
1<3
1 7

18
19
20 
2 1
7 7

2 3

24
2 3

A I did. I
Q All right, sir. Did you fill it in yourself?
A I don't know whether I filled it in myself or the

clerk there filled it in.
Q Let me see if it will refresh your recollection

to show you another form that is two pages printed 
front and back, and I will ask you whether you 
filled in that form?

A I am not able to say about whether I filled this
out or not.

Q That form is quite long, is it not?
A It is. In either case, I would have had to sign

it.
Q Well, as far as you recall, you either filled

these out or gave a clerk the information to put 
down, did you not?

A That is true.
Q On the first short form that I showed you, there 

is a place that says "Occupation.Did you tell 
the clerk your occupation or write it down there?

A I don't know whether I told him or wrote it down. 
But either one of the two, if I filled the form 
out, I wrote it. If I did not fill the form out, 
I told them what it was. 

i Q What occupation did you tell them?

+ >■



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10
11
12

1 3

14

13
16

17

18
1̂
20

21
22

23

24
23

$ 142¥

A Mail porter.
Q Are you sure of that?

| A Positive.
Q Are you sure you did not put down there mail 

clerk?
A That’s right.

MR. BURCH: Pass the witness.
.

THE COURT: That is all, thank you,| 
you may be seated.I

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Next?
MS. McDQNAID: Your Honor, I would ; 

like to offer in evidence Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 which 
i is the labor agreement effective July 1st, 1956.

THE COURT: No objection, I take
I
it? Received.

MR. BURCH: No objection.

a 2 i c



1 4 3
W. B. DEESE,

2 a
3 b e

4
5

BY6

7 Q
8 A
9 Q
10 A

11 Q
12 A
13 Q
14 A
15 Q
16

17 A
18 Q
19 A
2 0 Q
2 1

2 2 A
2 3

2 4

2 5

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCDONALD:

Will you state your name, please?
W. B. Deese, D-e-e-s-e.
And Mr. Deese, are you employed?
Southern Pacific Company.
When were you first employed by Southern Pacific? 
July 22, 1949.
That is here in Houston?
Houston.
Now, how were you classified when you were first 
employed in July of *69?
Train mail porter.
Was this at the station?
Southern Pacific station.
Tell the Court what your duties were as a porter 
at the station?
To unload mail from the incoming and outgoing 
train. After all the trains had departed, we 
went in and washed windows, scrubbed floors and 
dust all doors and things like that.



1

2

3

4

3
6
**I
8

V

1C

1 1
12

13
1 4

1 5

1 <s
17

18
IV

20
2 1
2 2

23

24

23

144
Q How long did you work as a mail porter at the 

train station?
A About two and a half years, 

j Q What was the race of the other porters at that
time?

A All black.
Q Can you recall approximately how many mail porters 

were employed at that time at the station?
A Approximately, maybe a hundred or something like 

that. I don’t know the exact amount.
Q Now, did the mail porters at the train station

ever become classified in a group at Southern
'

Pacific? By group, I mean Group 1, 2, 3?
A Group 2.

i Q They were classified in Group 2?
A In Group 2 later on.
Q Was this the same group that the mail porters

|in the mail room classified in?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, where did you go after you left your job 

as mail porter at the train station?
A January, ’53 went to the mail room at 915 Franklin.
Q Now, when you came to the mail room, how did you

learn how to perform your duties?
A I was instructed by Mr. Bradley.



1 4 5

3 A
4
5 Q
6 A
7 Q
8 A
9

io Q

20 

2 1 
22
2 \ 
2 4

A
Q

n

12

13

14

15 A

1 6  Q
17 'Aj
18 Q
19 ]

i A

How did you happen to apply for a transfer to the 
mail room?
I was recommended by Mr. Moody and hired by 
Mr. Henry Bradley.
Were you interviewed by Mr. Bradley?
Interviewed first.
Who was Mr. Moody?
A neighbor of mine. He worked in the mail room 
at the time.
Was he a mail porter?
Yes, he was a mail room porter.
Now, when you came to the mail room in January 
of 1953, what was the race of the other mail 
porters?
Black.
All black?
All black.
Mr. Deese, I don’t want to delay the Court, but 
can you just briefly explain to the Court what 
your duties were as a mail porter in the mail roomf

IAs near as possible, we started out in the 
morning and we were to sort mails for different 
departments over to the depot and put them in 
sacks, and after we would get back to 915 Franklin 
we would take the mail out of the bundles and

o2



i
■y

3

4

5

6
1i

(<
9

10
11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

23
24

2 S

146
place them in pigeonholes for departmental

;

pigeonholes.
jQ Did you work with any loose mail?

A There were a type mail addressed central mailing 
bureau and we had to open them and place them in 
the various departments that they went to.

Q Did you perform any other duties in dealing with 
mail?

A There were registers, U. S. registers that had
to be written up, and we wrote them up and weighed 
them to see how much they weigh and put the 
proper amount of postage that was supposed to be 
placed upon them. And write them up as to the 
destination and where they go with the return 
receipts and so on. And we had to know the amount 
that it would cost for this particular type of 
service.

Q Did you have occasion to address any mail?
A Occasionally. We had an addressograph machine 

that we would use to address various agencies 
that were connected with the Southern Pacific 
Railroad.

Q Did you actually pick up some of the bundles of 
mail from the train station and freight station 
and then in the evening return it?

U  JL



147
1 A
2 Q
3

j

4

5 A
6

i

6

9 Q
10

1 i A
1 2 Q
1 3 A
1 4

1 5

16 j Q
1 7 ! A
18

1 9 Q

20 A
21 | Q
2 i A
23 i Q
24 A

Q

Sure did.
Approximately how much time total did you spend 
during the day picking up the bundles and then 
returning the bundles?
We had various schedules, and in the eight hours,
I would assume it would take from two and a half 
to three hours to do this picking up, as far as 
the trip was concerned.
Once you finished that, did you perform the other 
duties that you described?
On the inside.
And how long was your work day, how many hours?
We worked from 7:00 o’clock until 10:30 and closed 
the office up and went back 2:00 to 6:15 until 
we got through, which would be sometimes 6:30.
Was it an eight hour work day or longer or shorterfj
It was an eight hour, but we had from 10:30 to 
2:30 for eight or ten hours.
You worked a split shift?
Yes, that’s right.
If you wanted a day off, who would you contact?
Mr. Bradley.
Did you take orders from Mr. Bradley?
All orders came from him.
Did you have any qualms or mind taking orders



from Mr. Bradley?
No. We knew he was the supervisor.
How long did you work in the mail room as porter? 
Twelve to twelve and a half years, I can’t 
remember.
Do you remember when you left the mail room, 
approximately?
Somewhere in 1965, I believe it was, latter part 
of ’65 or first of '66. I don’t know the exact 
date. But I was displaced by a Mr. Jones,
Mr. B . C . Jones. ;
How did he happen to displace you?
According to seniority. They had a rule that you j 
could exercise your seniority rights on any 
employee younger than you, you could bump off 
that job.
So then Mr. Benny Jones came from another job 
and bumped you?
From the mail porter to come over to the mail 
room porter, and he bumped me because of his
seniority.
Did Benny Jones work the station?
Yes, sir.
He was also in Group 2, as you testified earlier? 
Yes, sir.



149
1£ Q
2 A
3  !

}
Q

4

5 !

6 A
7
« Q
9 A

1 0 Q

1 1
1 2 A
13 Q
1 4

!
A

15
16
17 ' Q

1 8

19 A
20 !

21 Q

22
23
24 A
2̂ Q

So he exercised what type seniority to bump you? 
Group 2 seniority.
If, as a mail porter, you would have been classi
fied in Group 1, is it your understanding that 
Benny Jones could have bumped you?
Not if I was in Seniority 1, he could not have 
bumped me.
What job did you go to after you were bumped off?
I took a job as messenger, lower paying.
Can you recall approximately how much lower paying 
it was per month?
I will take a guess at near forty dollars a month.iI
How long did you work the messenger job?
From 1965 until 1967, I believe, the latter part 
of 1965 or the first of 1967. A year, or close 
to two years, something like that.
Now, when you left the messenger's job, where

Idid you go next? I
I bid upon a District 1 job as a junior file clerk1 
in the freight claims department.
Now, at the time that you went to the file clerk's 
job in the freight claims, what was the race of the 
other file clerks?
White.
How many file clerks were there at that time in

J -Jo •<_-



150
1

4 I Q
5 I A
6  Q

I
7 A
8 Q
9 A

10 Q
11
12

13 A
14 i Q

15 A
16 j Q

i
17 !
18
19

20  ! 

21

22 I

22 !J
24
25

freight claims?
There was two others, a head file clerk and 
assistant and the lower file clerk’s job.
And yourself?
And myself.
That is three in total?
Yes.
And the other two were white?
Yes.
To your best knowledge, were you the first black 
person to be employed as a file clerk in freight 
claims?
To my knowledge, yes.
Do you know of any others employed there?
No, sir.
After you became a part of District 1, what was 
your understanding of the agreement and how it 
would affect your seniority rights?

MR. BURCH: I will object for the 
record, Your Honor, as to his under
standing .

THE COURT: I would sustain it.
MR. BURCH: The contract is now in 

evidence.
THE COURT: I would sustain it.

l J/



151
1

2

3
4

5
6

7
8

9 ;i Q
10 I
1 i A

12 1 Q
13 A

14

1 5
1 f> Q
17 Ai
18 Q|
19

20 i A

21 j Q
1 ! A

23 ! Qj
A

■> ̂

MB. McDONALD : I’m sorry, Your 
Honor, I did not understand the basis.

THE COURT: The basis is that the 
contract itself would be the best 
evidence as to what the provisions of 
it were, and what this witness under
stood them to be would not be of any 
relevance.

!
(By Mrs. McDonald.) So, after you left the file 
clerk's job, where did you go next?
I went to the next file clerk’s job.
What was the name of that?
The same department. They had a low and middle 
and head file clerk, and each one paid a different 
salary.
Why did you make that change?
Because of more money, I would say.
Where did you go from that file clerk's job to 
the next one?

!
II took a temporary position as head file clerk.

How long did you work that?
Approximately three or four months.
Where did you go after that, Mr. Deese?
I bid on control clerk’s job in the collection 
department.



152
1 Q
2 , A
3

4 !
5 Q
6 A
7 Q

8 ! A
9 Q
10

11 A
12 Q
13

!

14 A
■

15 Q1
16

17 A
16 Q
19

20

2 1 A
22 Q

23 1 A1
24 ! Q

When was that, approximately? I
I don’t know the exact date or the month that I 
did do this. I stayed there about four days and 
got bumped by a junior employee.
What year was this?
1967.
So how long did you work as a control clerk?
Four days.
When you first became a control clerk, how many | 
control clerks were there?
I think there was five or six.
And what was the race of these other control
clerks?
White.
To your knowledge, were you the first black to be 
employed as control clerk?
Yes.
Now, you testified earlier that you were bumped 
by another employee off the control clerk’s job. 
Who was this employee?
I don’t know his full name, but we call him Bob.
Do you know his race?
White.
Now, did he have more or less seniority in 
Group 1?



153

i A
2 Q

3 A
i

4 I Q
5 A
6 Q
7 A
6 Q

9 A
10 Q

11
12 A

i13 Q
14

15 |
A

16 j
■.

Q

1 7 i
18 A
i 9 Q

20

2 ! A
-y >A* Ur

2 3

24 Q

2 ̂ A

More seniority.
i

And that enabled him to bump you?
Yes.

.

Did he have more or less company seniority?
He had less company seniority.
How do you know this?
According to the roster, the seniority roster.
Are these seniority rosters posted?
Yes, sir.
Now, after you were bumped off the control clerk’s; 
job, where did you go?
Head file clerk.
Did you make more or less money after you were 
bumped?

i

Less money.
This was after you were bumped off the control 
clerk’s job?
Yes, less money.
How long did you work in that capacity in the 
file clerk’s job?
About thirty days, and then another job came on 
the board as statistical clerk in the service 
account.
Did you bid on that?
I bid on the job.



1
2
3
4

5
6
7
6
9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17
18

19

20

2 !
22

23
24

■> ̂

154
Q Did you get the job?
A I got the job.

i Q How long did you work as a statistical clerk?I
A About eighteen months.
Q How did you happen to lose that job?

i

A I got bumped, displaced by a senior employee on 
District 1 roster.

Q What was the race of this employee?
A White.
Q Did you say he was senior employee on District 1

roster?
A District 1 roster.
Q Was he a senior employee on the company roster?
A No.
Q He has less company seniority?i j
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did either of these white employees, the one

who bumped you from the control clerk’s job and 
the one that bumped you from the statistical 
clerk’s job, was their company seniority prior 
to 1953 when you became a mail porter?

MR. BURCH: I want to object to 
this. It is a part of a series, this 
is completely irrelevant to Mr. Bradley’s 
case.



155
THE COURT: I think it is, too.

What are you trying to show by this 
witness?

MS. McDONALD: We filed a motion 
to make it a cross action and you deniedj 
that action.

THE COURT: Just thirty days ago 
or something.

MS. McDONALD: No, this was months 
ago, and it is our contention, Your 
Honor, that if it cannot be maintained I 
as a cross action, at least we can show ! 
discrimination to other persons so 
identif ied. :

THE COURT: Perhaps so. What has 
this witness told us? He has gotten 
two or three Group 1 higher classifica
tions, higher paying jobs, and has been 
bumped after, once, a matter of four day£ 
and, once, a matter of eighteen months, 
by an employee who had more Group 1 
seniority. What you are really saying 
is that the contract is inequitable in 
that it ought to have provided for 
company seniority rather than Group 1

c*-«̂ C dU



156
1
2
3 I
4
5

|6 I
7
8 
9

10

11

13

14

15

16 Ii
1 7  i
18
19

20  !*i
21 !

i

24
25

or Group 2 seniority. Isn’t that what 
you are getting down to?

MS. McDONAID: I think we are, Your 
Honor. What I am trying to establish, j 
and I think the Fifth Circuit has held I
in Local 189, that a company and union 
cannot condition promotion or demotion 
on the type of seniority that has been 
denied people because of their race.
Now, I have in evidence a seniority 
roster for District 1 employees as of 
1965 which shows one black person. I 
have in the testimony also that there 
have been very, very few, if any, black I 
persons in Group 1 until recently. |
Therefore, they have been denied the 
opportunity to accrue that Group 1 
seniority. What I’m saying is that 
therefore promotions and demotions 
shouldn’t be on the basis of Group 1, 
but company seniority. And I want to 
show through this witness what happened 
to him is what Mr. Bradley did not want 
to suffer, the constant bumping. This 
man has less company seniority than

J  374*



i
______________________________________  157
Mr. Bradley and is a younger man and is
willing to take the chance, and he also 
was a messenger —  |

THE COURT: Are we through with
this?

7

9
'I

io ; 

n  Q 

12

13 A

14 Q

15 A

16 Q
f *** 1 /
18
19

20 
21 

22

Q

MS. McDONALD: No, Your Honor, I 
have a few more questions.

THE COURT: All right. Let’s get | 
through with it. I am going to let it ' 
go on, I think we will save time.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Had these people that bumped | 
you been employed prior to 1953?
No.

I
They had been employed after?
No, 1965. }
Now, you said you worked as a file clerk in the 
freight claims department. Will you tell the 
Court what your duties were?
To file all the claims in freight claims department. 
What did you do daily, what types of filing did i
you do? I
File the claims, open the mail and mail out the 
mail, address and mail out the mail to various —

2 4  all the correspondence.
2 -> Q Di d  you do anyt h i n g  e l s e ?

c? s S  k



1 A
2 Q
3
4 1 A
5
6 ! Q

[

7 1 A
8

9

10

11 !
12 i Q
13

j
A

14 Q
j15 A

I

17 i
18
19 Q

20

21 A

22 Q

2 3 ! A

24
2 £

No.
Now, as a control clerk, what were your duties 
as a control clerk?
To put the numbers on the freight bills that 
were sent into us from the various agencies.
What kind of numbers did you put on?
We put what we called freight bill numbers and 
divide them up to cashiers, a group for cashiers, 
group for the station records and group for the 
consignee or the shipper, whoever it was, that 
was involved in the shipment and whatnot.
Did you do anything else as a control clerk?
Just that.
Now, what were your duties as a collection clerk? 
We collected money from the various shippers and 
consignees who do the shipping and receiving.
We collected all the money for the freight 
shipments.
Did you write any letters to clerks or how did 
you collect?
No, just collected.
How would you collect?
We had IBM cards and we matched them up with the 
amount of money that they sent in, the collection 
that they sent in. We would take them and add

olvj'yac.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
6
9

10
11
12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
2!
22

2 1
24
25

159
them up and subtract them and so on, whatever

1
was necessary, to meet the amount of money that

|was sent in with the check.
■

Q Now, what were your duties as a statistical clerk?!
A Well, our duties as statistical clerk were to

take the attorney’s report and add it up from 
the attorney’s report of any train that went out, 
and every time it made a stop, we would take and 
calculate the amount of miles and the time from 
one stop to the other, and so on, and the amount | 
of cars that they put on and the ones that they 
picked up, and put the attorneys on them and how

i
much time it would take to get from one destina
tion to the other.

Q How did you learn to perform each of these job
;

duties, how did you learn to perform collection
clerk and statistical clerk and file clerk? j

; I
A I was taught by the one in charge of these

various departments.I
i Q Just one further question, Mr. Deese. When you 

were bumped off of the statistical clerk’s job,
i1

you then went to what job?
A I went as collection clerk in the zone office.
Q Did that result in a loss in salary?
A No.

^ C A .



160
Q It is the same?
A No, it was a promotion, which is more, collection! 

clerk.
Q Is that the job you are working on now?
A Yes, it is.
Q Are you saying the collection clerk makes more 

than a statistical clerk?
A Yes, sir.

MS. McDONALD: No further questions), 
Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Deese, do you know whether other employees 
in so-called Group 1 jobs are bumped from time
to time?

A Do I know of any?
Q Yes.
A Personally, just from my personal standpoint,

sometimes you hear it, you know what I mean.
Q Don't you know, Mr. Deese, very well that

numerous employees, including numerous white

4 4  >



1employees, are bumped on almost a weekly basis? 
Well, I couldn’t say definitely. I can say that j 
that is the procedure.
And it is not at all unusual for a white employee 
in Group 1 to be bumped by someone else, is it?
No, sir.
As a matter of fact, at the present time you have | 
your company seniority in your present job, don’t
you?

I
As of July 1st, yes.
And you understand that there is no such thing 
as group seniority any more?
As of July 1st, yes. July 1st, 1971, now, 
according to the union, 1971 now.
Yes, sir. You know that your entire company 
seniority is available to you for any clerical 
job you might want, is it not?
Right now, yes.
Whether it was formerly in Group 1, 2, or wherever 
it was?
As of July 1st, yes.
When you went to work in the mail room the first 
time, was that job subject to the union agreement
or not?
No. it was an excepted position for about a year.



162

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9

10 

11
12

13

14

1
16

17

18 
1 9

20
21
22 
23 

: i

Q

i
II
A

I Q

A

j
| Q
A

j

i
Qj

A

i Q
ii
! A
Q

Qi
i A
Q

Mr. Moody, you say, recommended you and Mr. Moody 
at that time was working as a mail room porter, 
was he not?
Yes .
Who did you talk to besides Mr. Moody and
Mr. Bradley in connection with taking that job?
I didn’t talk to anyone. I only talked to 
Mr. Bradley.
Did you ever talk to Mr. Markham?
Yes, sir, after Mr. Bradley had talked to me, he 
carried me to Mr. C. S. Markham and said this is 
the man and Mr. Markham said, "He is going to 
work with you, and so that’s it."
That same day you first saw Mr. Bradley?
That’s right.

i

Now, Mr. Markham was the supervisor at that time, j 
was he not?
That’s right.
And you recognized that he was the supervisor in 
charge of the mail room and the machinery repair 
room and the duplicating bureau?
He was in charge of the entire duplicating bureau. 
And that included the mail room, didn’t it?
Yes, it did.
You were aware before you came in to testify today,

J



I '1 that it was Mr. Bradley’s contention that he was
2 the supervisor over the mail room, weren't you?
3 | A Yes.j
4 MR. BURCH: I have no other

|
5 | questions. Pass the witness.
6

9 ii
10 j
11 i
12

13

14

13 i
■

I16

19

2 i

24 i

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAV:

Q Mr. Deese, am I correct in my understanding that 
you have held a Group 1 job continuously since 
sometime in '67? i

A Yes.
Q And at the time you bid in that Group 1 job, j

you were working in a Group 2 job?
A Yes.
Q And at that time you did have less seniority 

than Mr. Bradley?
A Sure.
Q Now, you have also mentioned that you have

company seniority in Group 1 jobs since 1971, 
according to the union. According to the union, 
do you mean Local Lodge 589?

X  v  v



164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16 
17

18
19

20
2 1
y y

23

24 
•> >

A That’s right.
Q How was it that the Union 589 informed you of 

that fact?
A At the union meeting.
Q There was a union meeting?

| A That’s right.
Q When was that?
A The union meetings are held first Tuesday night

I
of each month, I think it is, I think I have the 
dates right.

Q Do you recall whether or not members were informed 
of this, of the rights they had back in January, 
1966 when you were first placed on Group 1 
seniority roster?

»

A The only way that I found out that my seniority 
date would run from January 1, '66, I was told 
about it and asked to look on the roster, stating 
that they would be consolidated on the Group 1i
seniority roster as of 1-1-66.

Q And this was told to you at a union meeting also?
A It was told in a union meeting. I wasn’t at that 

particular meeting.
I Q Do you know Mr. Greater?S
j A Yes, L. M. Greater, yes.
Q What position does he hold in 589?



1 A
2 | Q

.

3 A
4

i
i

5 i!
6 | Q
7 A
8 Q
9 A
10 Q
11 A
12 Q
13 A
14 Q
13

ii

16 |
17 i A|
18

|
i

i

19
i

20 ! Q
i

2 1 A
7  7 Q
23 ' A

24
2S Q

He is local chairman.
Is that chairman of the grievance committee?
No, he is the local chairman. He is overall 
the grievances, too, I might say that. I say yes 
on that question.
Was he elected to a position?
Yes, he is elected.
Is the lodge an integrated lodge?
Yes, it is.
And it has a substantial number of Negro members? 
Would youmind repeating that?
A substantial amount of Negro members?
Yes, it has.
Now, on that committee, do you know whether or

i

not there are two Negro members on the grievance 
committee?
They had two up until last month, I believe, and 
since then they put Mr. Davis as assistant to the 
zone office grievance.
Mr. Davis?
Yes.
Is he a white man or a Negro?
No, he is a Negro. We asked to have one in the 
black race to represent us.
Now, you spoke of union meetings that you attended



i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
1 6

17

18
1 9

20

21

22
23
24
2 5

_________________________________________________________________ 166

Do you remember whether or not you were at a union; 
meeting in July of 1967 when Mr. Bradley's prob- I 
lems were discussed?

A Yes. I think I can remember. I can’t remember
i each word for word.
Q Do you recall what the union meeting decided to 

do with Mr. Bradley's problems at that time?
A I'm not sure. I don't know if I should say,

i
but I think Mr. Greater said that his case was 
referred to Mr. Gibson, who was at that particular! 
time our chairman, and there was nothing that he 
could do. I am not sure of this now. I don’t !
know his exact words, so I would rather not say.
But he said it was out of his hands, Mr. Greater'si 

Q Do you know what position Mr. Gibson held at that |
time?

| A I don't know if you call that the general
chairman or not, but it is above Mr. Greater.

Q What was your understanding of the general 
chairman, was he a Local 589 chairman?

A He is over the entire local here in the State ofI
Texas.

j Q In other words, he is not an officer of Lodge 589?
A No, he is over 589.1

i Q Have you been in any other meetings of Local 589

9- -  7 4-.



when Mr. Bradley’s problems have come up?
Yes. We go through proper channels in taking 
grievances we have. We take them to the grievance 
man and from there to the local chairman and from 
there to Mr. Gibson and from Mr. Gibson it goes 
on up to higher authorities.
Who was the grievance man?
At that time, that particular time we gave them 
to -- we have one now named Baker, but we had 
another one then.
White or Negro?
Each department has its own grievance committee. 
And by the grievance man, you mean the grievance 
man in the department in which you worked?
Yes, we give that grievance to that particular 
person.

MR. HIGHSAW: That is all, Your 
Honor.

THE COURT: Is that all? Suppose 
we take our recess at this time.

(A short recess was taken.)



168

3
I

4
5 |
6 I
7
8

i
9

10

11

12

13 ;i
14 !

15

16

17 I

18 |
19

20 

2 1 
2 2 

23 

2 4 
2 S

THE COURT: Please be seated

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCDONALD:

Q

A

Q
A

Q
A

Mr. Deese, if you had a grievance concerning 
your employment and you wanted to go to a union 
official, who would you go to?
The grievance man in my department.
And what is his name?
The last name is Beckman. I don’t know his first 
name.
A member of 589?
Yes, sir.

MS. McDONALD: I have nothing 
further.

THE COURT: That is all, sir, you 
may step down.

(Witness excused.)



1 ANDREW M. DOTSON,
2 a witness called for and on behalf of plaintiff,
3 having been duly sworn, was examined and testified
4 as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6

7
BY MS. MCDONALD:

8 Q Would you state your name, please, sir?
9 A Andrew M. Dotson.
10 Q Mr. Dotson, are you employed?
1 1 A Yes, sir.
12 Q Where are you employed?
13 A Delta Airlines.
14 Q Were you ever employed by Southern Pacific?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Here in Houston?
17 A Yes , I was .
18 Q When were you first employed?
19 A 1940 and returned in '45.
20 Q In what classification were you priced?
21 A In 1940 I was working SP shops and I left and
22 came back in ’45 in the rip shop.
23 Q What did you do at the SP shops?
24 A Labor.
25 Q And did you ultimately work in the mail room at

*\ r-> S v. «-C.



170
l
?
3

4
5
6 
i

8 
V 

10 
1 i
12

13
1 4

1 3
1 6

1 7

18
13>

20
21

22

2 3

2 4  

23

Southern Pacific?| !
A In 1953 until T62.
Q When you first came to the mail room, how did you i 

learn how to perform your job duties?
j A Mr. Bradley, along with the rest of the men.

Mr. Bradley was my boss.
Q Is that Henry Bradley?
A That’s Henry Bradley.
Q If you wanted to have a day off, who did you

contact?
A I would tell Mr. Bradley.
Q Did you ever take any other instructions from any 

other person other than Mr. Bradley during the 
time that you were employed in the mail room?

A Pertaining to mail room work, no.
; Q Now, can you briefly tell the Court what your 

duties were?
I A It has been quite a while now, but I recall, I 

think it was 7:00 o’clock we would go to work, 
pick up mail at the SP station and post office, 
came back and distributed the mail, go to the 
freight house and pick up mail, deliver the mail;

| to Baker, Botts law firm, pick up at the union
station, back to the post office and pick up more 
mail and then distribute mail in the building at

O } /



-I
1 1i;
2 j

1 Q
3 | A

1
4

j5 | Q
6 A
7 Q

8  1

9 A
10 Q
11

12 A
13 Q
14

15 A
16 Q
17 A
18
19

20

21 Q

22 A
23 Q

24 A
25 1

171
other departments in the building.
Did you pick up mail every day?
Yes, five days a week. Sometimes we would
alternate.
Other mail porters would pick up the mail?
Yes .
How many mail porters would be responsible for 
picking up the mail in one day?
I drove the truck the majority of the time.
So the other mail porters wouldn’t go, is that 
correct -- 
Right.
-- with you when you were picking up mail. Did 
you do anything else?

IOh, yes.
i

What else?
I would get my agent board ready and then 
distribute mail to the building, the U. S. mail

i

and the company’s mail to each individual where 
it was going, in the State or out of the State.
Were these pigeonholes?
Yes.
Did you do anything else?
If I had a few minutes and I noticed that my board 
was low on envelopes, I would run the machine, my



172
1

I
2 !

’ I|
4 Q
5 j A

6 Q

7 A

8

9 Q

1 0 A

11

12

13 Q

1 4

1 3 A
16

17

1 8 Q

1 9 ! A

2 0 1 Q

21 A

2 2 Q

2 3 ' A

2 4 i Q
2 3 ; a

addressograph machine, and fix my envelopes so 
my board wouldn’t be out when it came time for me 
to get the mail ready for U. S. mailing.
Did you do any loose sheet mail?
Quite a bit.
What did you do with that?
So that it would get to each individual, it all 
came in bulk, and we had to cut it out.
What do you mean "cut it out"?

i

For instance, if something was coming to you, 
put it in your mail box, and each individual

|up and down the line.
When you mean the word "cut" does that mean take 
it out?

|

Yes, cut your name from the other guy, because 
it is all bundled up together, so these are onion 
skin sheets.
Separate them?
Right.
What would you do with them?
Pigeonhole it.
Did you use the addressograph machine?
Oh, yes.
What did you do with that?
For my envelopes for the different agents up and



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11 
12 

13
14
i =;
L 6 
17

18
19
20

2 4 
2 5

down the SP line.I
Q On the days that you would be responsible for 

picking up the mail, would you spend more than 
three hours a day picking up and delivering the
bundles of mail?I

A No, I would say three hours.
Q What did you do the other times?

I A We had a break in there where the mail room was 
closed, and then we would come back in the 
afternoon, continually inside the building 
distributing our outgoing and incoming mail, 
and preparing the postage for the out-of-city 
and train mail.

Q Is that when you performed the other duties that 
you have described, pigeonholing?

A Yes, that was morning and afternoon also, in 
between times.

Q Now, when did you leave Southern Pacific?
A In July of ’62.

i Q Why did you leave?
A Furlough, cut-off rather, the job played out.
Q Have you been since recalled?
A Haven't heard a word from the SP since, nothing

about being called back to work.
i Q Why didn’t you transfer to another group?

=2 iV 4L



174
1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8 

9

10 
1 1 
12

13

14

1 5 
.16

17
18
19

20 
21 

22

2 * 
2 4 
23

A
Q
A

Q

Q
i '

i ai
Q
A

I had no choice.
What do you mean?
When I left the Sky Cap I relinquished my Red Cap 
rights, and went to the mail room and I was on 
their roster.
What roster is that?

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I would 
object again. This is totally irrele
vant to any issue in this case, what 
might have happened to this man.

THE COURT: Well, the plaintiff is 
contending, as I understand it, that 
this was a course of conduct that was 
in itself discriminatory. I will hear 
it.

(By Ms. McDonald.) You were in what group when 
you transferred to the mail room?
I guess it was Group 2, this local that we joined. 
Why didn’t you transfer to another group?
I couldn’t transfer, I didn’t have any place to go 
I was on the mail room roster under their seniority 
list. My other years, I couldn’t move any more.

MS. McDQNOUGH: No further 
questions, Your Honor.

j  i  ^



1
1 7 5

2
3

i
Q

4

5

6
1
A

nt

8 '
9

1 0

1 1 I Q
1 2

1 3 A
1 4 Q
1 3

1 6 A
17 i!
1 8

!

1 9

20
2 1

2 2

2 *
2 4 !
2 3

BY THE COURT:

Was there a layoff, they did not have enough 
jobs and someone with greater seniority took 
yours, and perhaps you were one of those —
No. What happened, Judge, the company merged 
or moved the office or some of the force to 
San Francisco, and my job was not classified 
as a movable job. So by doing this, they reduced 
the force.
Some fellows lost their job and you were one of 
them?
Right.
And you did not have enough seniority that you 
could keep the job that you had?
That’s right. I was the only one.

THE COURT: Any cross examination 
at all?



1 CROSS EXAMINATION
176
1

7
8 
9

10
11

12 i

13

14 1

1 3
i

16 J

17 ! 
is iI
19 |

20 !

2 *
2 X

BY MR. BURCH:
I

Q Just a couple of questions. As I understand it, 
the force in the mail room was cut down. Is 
that correct, when you were furloughed?

A One man.
Q Were there five in there besides you, before you ;

were furloughed, or four, or do you remember?
A Five of us.
Q At the time you were furloughed, was it your

understanding that just about every department 
or small office in the company’s organization 
was a separate seniority unit?

A It was my understanding that the mail room porter,;
that job, did not merit either severance paper

'or going to San Francisco, either one. I
Q Let me get at it another way. You had previously !

worked for Southern Pacific as a Red Cap?
A Right.
Q Was that a Group 2 seniority job?
A We weren’t localized, so I couldn't say whether

it was Group 1 or 2 or 3, because I couldn’t bump 
from the Red Cap roster to the baggage room 
porters. I couldn't go there.

; 4 7  ̂



1 Q
2 ! A

3  Q

4 !
5 A

6

ii
1 4  i

1 5  A

16

1 7

18 l
1 9

■

20 j

21 !

23

24
25

Was the Red Cap job a union job?
Yes.
Are you sure about that, are you sure it was 
covered by the clerks?
It was not covered by the clerks, it was covered 
by United Transport Workers.
All right. You understood that the job in the 
mail room was covered by the Brotherhood of 
Railway Clerks, a different union?
I think when they revised, I joined. I think the 
book stated it was Brotherhood of Railway Clerks 
and Freight Handlers.
It was a different union that had the contract 
over the mail room?
Than the Red Caps, right.

MR. BURCH: That is all I have.
MR. HIGHSAW: No questions.
THE COURT: That is all, thank you. 

(Witness excused.)

-2 ~ b



178
1
2 
3

RENFRO MOODY.
a witness called for and on behalf of the plaintiff, 
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as

4 ; follows:
5 : DIRECT EXAMINATION
6

BY MS. MCDONALD:
7
8 1 Q Would you state your name, please?
Q A Renfro Moody.

10 i Q Mr. Moody, what is your race?
11 A Negro.

1 2  i1 Q Are you employed?
13 I A Yes, ma’am.
.4 Q By whom are you employed?
15 ! A SP Railroad.
16 Q That is Southern Pacific here?
17 \ A Yes.
18 i Q In Houston?
19

i A Yes, sir.
20 1 Q When were you first employed, Mi'.

2 1 ! A January 22, 1946.

22 Q How were you employed?

23
! A How was I employed?

2-v Q What .job?
2 S A Mail porter. _1

2 \



179
1 i Q Was that working in a mail room?
7a* A Mail room.
3 1 Q At the time that you were employed, what was the
4 race of the other mail room porters?

A Negro.
6 i Q All Negro?
7 Aj All Negro.
8 Q How did you learn how to perform your job duties?
9 ! A. Through Mr. Bradley. He taught me about handling
10 the mail.I
1 1  ! T H E  C O U R T :  A l i t t l e  l o u d e r ,  I  c a n n j )

1 2  h e a r  y o u .

1 3  Q  D i d  y o u  g e t  i n s t r u c t i o n s  f r o m  a n y o n e  e l s e

1 4  i c o n c e r n i n g  y o u r  m a i l  r o o m  p o r t e r  d u t i e s ?  

i s  | A  No, h e  w a s  h e a d  o f  t h e  d e p a r t m e n t  t h e r e .

16  | Q  T h a t  i s  M r .  B r a d l e y  y o u  a r e  r e f e r r i n g  t o ?

1 7  A  M r .  B r a d l e y .

1 8  Q  Now, i f  y o u  h a d  a  p r o b l e m  c o n c e r n i n g  y o u r
iI

1 9
) .

2 0 j

2 1 1

2 2 A

23 Q

2 4 A
2 5 Q

employment situation and you wanted to go to 
the union, whom did you contact, who did you go 
to in the union to get help?
I believe Mr. Greater.
Is that Lo M. Greater?
Yes, ma'am.
Was he grievance chairman, to your best knowledge,

t

>Uo



1
2
3

4
5
6
t

8
9

10

11

12

13
14

13

16
17

lo
1̂
20

21

22

23
24

23

| A

i QI
i|
I A 

Q

Q
A

Q

____________ _______________________________  180
of 589?
Yes.
Now, did you ever have an opportunity to talk 
with Mr. Hudson, who was Mr. Greater's predecessor!? 
Yes, ma’am. He came in the mail room.
What did he do when he came in the mail room? 1
Well, he said if we joined the union there he woulji 
get our -- change our status from porter to clerk.jIIDid you ultimately join 589?
After closed shop, yes, we had to join.
Can you speak up a little louder? You did join 
589?
Yes, ma'am.
Now, Mr. Moody, what job do you presently have?
Line desk clerk in the accounting department.
That is in what group? j
Group 1.
When did you first transfer out of Group 2 into 
Group 1?
Must have been about mid summer of '67.
Why didn't you transfer earlier?

MR. BURCH: Just for the record,
Your Honor, I want to object to why.
She is asking now for subjective state 
of mind.

-O /



181

1
2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9

10

1 1
1 2

1 3

14

1 5
1 6

17
18
1 9

20
21

23

2 4

23

THE COURT: Okay. He may answer.!
Why did you transfer in *67 from Group 2,

;

to Group 1?
I

THE WITNESS: Why did I?
| Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Why didn’t you transfer 

earlier, I think is the question?
A Because you give up all your seniority rights 

to go into Group 1.
Q What do you mean by that? 

j A Well, you start from January 1st of ’66, and if 
you didn’t make it, you had to exercise your
seniority rights before you got back to Group 2,

i and you didn’t know, I mean you had to bid on any
I

other job that you could hold there. It was a|
big decision to make.I

Q Now, you worked as a file clerk for a while?i
A Yes, I did.
Q What were your duties as a file clerk?
A Filing freight claims in the freight claim

department. I mean dead file. I think I started 
in the dead file, just filing bills, way bills.

Q Just filed all day?
I A Yes.
Q And in what department was that?
A That was freight claims, the first job I worked.



182
1 Q Now, was that job paying more than the job that
2 you occupied before as mail porter?
3 A Yes, ma'am.i
4 Q Now, when did you get the job of line desk clerk?
5 | A
6
7
8 
9

10 I
11
12 | Q
13 A

14 I

i s i Q
1 fS I A
17 ; Q
18 )I19 ! A
20 Q
21 I

23
2 4 I

Q

That must have been about two years ago. I 
changed from freight claim and went to record 
clerk in the accounting department and the job 
came open as control clerk in the same department 
there and I bid on it. Then I was bumped off and 
then I bid on line desk clerk where it paid the 
same as the control clerk did.
What were your duties as a record clerk?
Well, it was almost the same as freight claim 
was, filing way bills.
Just filing of papers?
Yes, filing papers.
Did you tell me what your duties were as a line 
desk clerk?
Well, I make the way bill for the rate department. 
Is that filing for what, what do you do with 
these bills?
Well, it is a running bill that moves with the 
shipment there and you have to match the revenue 
bill up with it.
You match two bills together?

: J U O



1
2 !
3

4 I
5 |
6
7
8 ; 
9

10 

1 1
i

12

13

14

1 5  |

A Match them together and pass it on to the rate 
department. All you have to do is check your 
card number and way bill number and date and pass 
it on to the rate department.

Q Do you clip them together?
A Yes.
Q And then what did you do?
A Give them to the rate department.
Q Is this line clerk, line desk clerk paying

more than the mail porter’s job in the mail room?
A Considerably more.

MS. McDGNALD: I have no further 
questions, Your Honor.

i16
1 7  1

18
19

I;;
BY MR. BURCH:

CROSS EXAMINATION

20 Q Let me ask about your testimony. You understood
2 1 you had to give up your seniority rights if you
2 2 went to Group 1?j
2 3 j A Yes.
24 Q Did you understand that if you bid into Group 1

j
jobs that there was a reduction in force, you



184
1

2 j
3 !
4 A
5
6 Q
7
8

9 A
10 Q
1 1
12 1 A
13 |; «
14

15 i
16

17 | A
18 1
19

20 ! Q

21 ’

23 | A
24 !
23

would have to use your seniority to move to any 
available job in Group 1 before you could bump 
back to Group 2?
Yes, sir, what I had, which wasn’t any. You 
started as a new employee in Group 1.
At the time you went into Group 1, according to 
our records, that was around March 2 of 1967. 
Does that sound about right?
Sometime in ’67, yes, sir.
At that time you had a little over one year of 
seniority in Group 1, didn’t you?
Yes. sir.
And you understood that if there was a layoff, 
then -- and you were unable to find a job in 
Group 1 on seniority, then you could bump back 
in Group 2?
Well, I could bump back in Group 2 there, but 
I had to give up about twenty-one years’ 
seniority.
Mr. Moody, didn’t you know that you kept all 
the seniority you ever had in Group 2 when you
bid out of there?
Well, Mr. Gibson was the man taking care of bid 
slips, and he told me when I first bid into 
Group 1 that I was giving up my seniority in

* U '



1
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9

1C

11
12

13

1 4

1 s

16
17

18
19

20
21

23

24
2 S

Group 2.
t Q When did Mr. Gibson tell you that?
.

A A couple of time. Every time I started to bid, 
a couple of times I even rejected because I hadi
to think of it again and I would never be back.

j
Q Did you submit this to Mr. Gibson or did you 

submit them to somebody with the company?
A To Mr. Gibson. I think one to Mr. Gibson and!

one to Mr. Greater, three of them.
Q What Mr. Gibson are you talking about?1
A B. W. Gibson.I
Q Is he an official of the company?

|S A Yes, sir.II
Q What was his job?

j A I don’t know. He is the one that was taking careI
of bids, assigned the jobs to the one who had the 
most seniority. I

Q Why did Mr. Gibson tell you specifically about 
what would happen to your Group 2 seniority?

:1 A If I leave Group 2 and come to Group 1, he wanted 
to make sure I knew what I was doing there, that|
I was giving up my seniority to come in Group 1 
there, and then you didn’t know whether you werej
qua l i f i e d  for the job until after you was in 
there and they kept me just quivering for quite

-> (•



1 i
2 Q

3 A

4 Q
5
6 A

7

8
9

10 i

1 I |
12
13

14 Q

!ii
16

17 j A
18 j
19

20 |

J \
24
2 3

186
a while.
When did Mr. Gibson tell you this?
When I put in a bid. j
Well, do you remember, are you talking about some
time in T66 for example?
Some jobs came open in Group 1 there. That's the 
reason I waited about a year there, and I would go 
in and ask about the job —  I really didn't know 
all of the duties, I never had filed before, and 
so I was asking about bids, and was explaining, 
you know, if I wanted, I would be the highest 
bidder on the job and I would get it. He explained, 
you know, what I was giving up there.
And it is your testimony that that happened 
probably sometime about a year after you first 
had seniority in Group 1?
Well, I guess, probably the first time I attempted 
I guess would be about six or seven months in '66. 
Then that first time they laid off people and 
wouldn’t take -- wouldn’t accept any bids until 
the people were all replaced, or either when they 
called them back, you know, reclaimed the job 
there, and all those people were put to work 
before they would accept any bids. After that 
was exhausted, then I made another attempt and



187
ii ii1

2 i

3 Q
14 ii

5
|

6 A

7
i

8 Q
9

10 A

11 ; q

12 1 A
13 | Q
14

•* A

- 1 Q

17 A

18 Q
19 A

20 Q

2 1
24
2 5

A

that’s when he started explaining about what you •. 
are giving up and leaving.
Did you go to anyone with the union at that time 
and inquire and ask whether Mr. Gibson was right j

i

about this?
No. The position he held I didn't think that 
would be necessary.
Were you familiar with the labor contract at that j

time?
When I talked to Mr. Gibson?
Yes.
Which one?
The labor contract with the clerk’s organization 
that covered your job?
Oh, no, sir.
You were not familiar with that contract? |
No, sir.
Did you ever see it before or read it?
No, sir.
You mentioned that —  something about joining the 
union under the closed shop. Do you know about 
when it was that you first joined the union?
It would be hard for me to make a good guess there 
When it was closed shop, that’s when we went into
the union. _____



188

1 ' Qi
2 I

8 A
9

10 !

12
13

14

1 s

17 !
i18 |

19

20 j 
21

i
Q

22 !
2 *

Q

----------- --------------- ---------- ------ — ---- 1
That was sometime after 1954, wasn’t it, a number
of years after 1954?
Yes, sir.
As I understand your previous testimony, someone 
told you that if you joined the union you would 
get your status changed from porter to clerk.
Who was it that told you that?
You are talking about the chairman of the union 
now, that’s Bob Gibson. I think it was at the 
time T. J. Bettes Building —  no, First National 
Bank Building at that time. I was working in 
the mail room, working a split shift and I think 
I got off around either 10:00 or 10:30, and my 
job to deliver mail to several departments in the j 
First National Bank Building. I guess Mr. Gibson : 
over there told me, I would say close to a dozen 
times, that we wasn’t in the union, that if you 
boys over there in the mail room, if you joined 
the union, you know, he would get it changed to 
clerk.
This is before the mail room jobs were brought 
under the union contract, was it not?
Yes, sir, that's right.
You and I met yesterday for the first time, did
we not?

=2-6



Yes. i

And I told you who I was and that I was trying 
to find out some facts about this case?
Yes.
Are you telling me about a conversation you had 
with Mr. Gibson back before the mail room was 
covered by the union?
Yes.
And didn’t you tell me yesterday that you talked 
to Mr. Gibson and he said that if you fellows 
would get in the union down there, that he could 
get rid of that split shift for you?
I told you about Mr. Hudson, not Mr. Gibson.
It is your testimony that you told me that about ! 
Mr. Hudson and not Mr. Gibson?
Yes, sir, unless we got mixed up on our persons 
there. Mr. Gibson stated that he would change 
it from porters to clerk if you boys get together. 
But Mr. Hudson and —
May I interrupt?
Sure.
Well, you go ahead and finish.
I said about Mr. Hudson there, when he came over, 
he came in the mail room, the time I remember most 
definitely, he came in there and looked around at



190
i

2

3 |
4
5
6

7 Q
8

9
i
A

10 Q
11
12
13

14 A
15 | Q
16 A
17
18
19

20 
21

what we was doing there and he said it was iclerk’s work. The only thing he said, we joined 
the union and that he would, you know, do away i
with the split shift and have it changed to 
porters -- from porters to clerk is what I am 
trying to say.
The split shift was done away with when your job 
came under union contract?
Yes, sir.
You did not tell me yesterday about Mr. Gibson 
or Hudson, either one, telling you if you would 
get in the union they would change your job to 
a clerk’s job, did you?
I sure did.
You remember that you told me that yesterday?
Sure did.

MR. BURCH: That is all I have.

24



1 [
2

B Y
3

4 Q
5

6 A
7 Q
8

9 A
1 0

11 Q1
1 2 A
1 3 1

|

1 4 Q

13 ; A
16 Q
17

1 8 ] A
1 9

20 Q

21 A
22 : Q

2 * A
24 Q

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:

Mr. Moody, am I correct in my understanding that 
you are presently a member of Local 589?
Yes.
Can you recall about when you became a member 
of Local 589?
Right now I can’t, but whenever the closed shop
came.
Was that around 1965, you think?
Well, you said ’54 a while ago. When it was 
closed shop.
Do you attend union meetings of Local 589?
Very seldom.
Do you recall attending a meeting in ’67 when 
Mr. Bradley’s situation was discussed?
I wasn’t at the meeting at that time. I heard
about it.
I’m sorry?
I said I heard about it.
You heard about it?
Yes, but I wasn’t present.
You weren't there. Do you know who Mr. Pat J. 
Gibson is?

^7cX^



192

1 A
i

2 Q
3 i
4  !

5 1 A

t>

7 Q
8 A

9 Q

1 0 A

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4 Q

1 5  i A

1 6  ! Q

1 7 j
i 8  :

1 9 t
A

2 0 Q

21
|

2 2 A

23 Q

24
25 A

Yes.
Were you speaking of Mr. Pat Gibson when you were !

italking about these conversations back in ’54 
about the union or some other Gibson?
I was speaking of him, too. That was before we 
joined the union.
Were you talking with Mr. Pat J. Gibson?
Yes.
What is Mr. Pat Gibson’s position, do you recall? 
Well, he changed that after he joined the union, 
changed what he had said before we joined the 
union. He said it was clerk’s work, and after we

Ijoined the union —
Pat J. Gibson? j

IYes, he is across the street there.
>Now, am I correct in my understanding that you 

have held a Group 1 job continuously since you 
first bid on one in 1967?
Yes, sir.

IAt the time you bid the job in. Group 1 job, in 
1967 was your seniority less than Mr. Bradley’s?
Yes.
In other words, if Mr. Bradley bid for the job, 
he would have gotten it rather than you?
Yes, sir.

4 7oV



193
1 ! MR. HIGHSAW: That is all I have,
2 i Your Honor.

5 |
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

3 j

4 i

7
8 
9

1C
11
12
13

14

15
15

17
18 
19

20
21
22
23

BY MS. MCDONALD:
|
Q Mr. Moody, this Mr. Hudson that you referred to, 

what position did he hold?
i
A He was the grievance man or something before

t Mr. Greater.
Q With 589? 

i A Yes.
MS. McDONALD: I have no further 

questions.
THE COURT: That is all, thank you. 

(Witness excused.)

iii
24
25

=2 7*/ 4.



1 ERNEST JOHN MACKEY,
2
3
4

5
6 
7 
6 
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5

1 7

a witness called for and on behalf of plaintiff,
| having been duly sworn, was examined and testified
>Ij as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I BY MS. MCDONALD:

Q Would you state your name, please?
A Ernest John Mackey.
Q Mr. Mackey, what is your race?I
A Negro.

j Q And are you employed by Southern Pacific in
Houston?

A Yes, ma’am.
j
j Q How are you classified?
1 A Classified as mail porter.
, Q Did you take over Mr. Bradley's position when he

18
19

20 
21 
22 
23 

2 4

A
Q

A
Q

i ->

left?
Yes, I did.
Do you receive more money per month than the 
other mail porters in the mail room?
Yes, ma’am, I do.
Now, can you briefly describe to the Court what 
your duties are?
My duties are to weigh, stamp, mail, to pick up a



195

2 m a i l .  Just handling the mail in general, sort
3 mail for the different offices.
4 Q D o  you compute mail rates, postage rates?
5 A D o  I handle mail rates?
6 Q Yes.
7 A Yes.
8 Q D o  you weigh mail?
9 A I weigh it. That is what I said, I weigh the

1C m a i l ,  sometimes stamp it.
1 1 Q Do you prepare certified mail?
12 A Yes, I write up certified mail.
1 3 Q D o  you prepare registered letters?
1 4 A Yes, I do.
IS Q Now, since Mr. Bradley has left, have there been
1 6 a n y  whites employed in the mail room?
1 7 A Yes. j

1 8 Q When was the first white person employed on a
1 9 permanent basis in the mail room?
20 A On a permanent basis it would be about a week
21 ago, I’d say, last Thursday.
22 Q A week ago Thursday?
2 3 A Yes.
24 Q Is this the first white?
25 A That was the first one.

~ 7<£ v..



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 S

lf>
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
23

Q Is this the first white person to be employed on
IIa permanent basis in the mail room since you have I

been working there?
A Yes. |
Q At the present time how many other persons are 

in the mail room?
A Besides myself?
Q Yes.
A Three others.
Q How many?
A Three.
Q How did you learn how to perform the job of mail I

porter?
A My first day Mr. Moore was there working and he 

showed me, and after that, whatever was to be 
done and I didn’t know, I would ask Mr. Bradley 
and he would instruct me what to do. i

Q When did you come to the mail room?
A In ’67, about April, I believe, of ’67. I believe

that is the date.
Q Now, did you also talk with Mr. Reagan Burch

yesterday, the attorney for the company?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did he tell you yesterday?
A He just asked me a few questions.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

l 5
16
17

18
19

20
21
2 >
23

24
25

197

Q What did he ask you?
I

MR. BURCH: Excuse me, Your Honor,
unless there is something —i iTHE COURT: I would sustain an 
objection to that.

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Did you talk with him yesterdajr?
A Yes. I talked with him yesterday.

i IMR. BURCH: I will withdraw my i
objection. I don’t mind if she goes 
into it.

MS. McDONALD: I have no further
|questions, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Mackey, I will ask you, do you remember what 
I asked you yesterday when I first met you, in
ef feet?

A Well, if I remember right, I can remember one 
question in general. You asked me about what 
I thought about the classification of the job, 
why the job was called a mail porter job, and

«3 7 X ^



1
2
3
4

5 ! Q
6 1I
7

j

8 , A
i

9 i o

10
11 A
12 j Q
13
14 I A!
15 Q
i
17

18 ’ A
19 i

20 !i
21
22
23

24 Ii
2 5 i

198
.

that I believed it was called mail porter job 
because the majority that worked in there were 
Negro. You asked me more questions, but I don't 
remember right offhand.
As far as you recall, were my questions about 
your job and how it works and what your duties
were?
That's right.
At the outset, did I tell you, or did Mr. Adams 
tell you that I was an attorney for the company? I
You did.

i

And we sat down in the duplicating room and talkedJ|
did we not?
That's right.
Does the mail room operate fairly smoothly now 
that you are working there and in Mr. Bradley’s 
former position?
Well, I think so.

MR. BURCH: I have no further 
questions.

THE COURT: That is all, thank you. 
(Witness excused.)

£  /y*.



199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14

1 S
16

17
18 
19

20

21
? 7

23

24
2 S

MS. McDONOUGH: Your Honor, I have
ji no more witnesses to call. We rest.
|

THE COURT: Are you ready to go
forward?

MR. BURCH: Yes, sir. May we have 
about ten minutes or so?

I

Mr. Burch.

THE COURT: Yes.
(Recess taken.)

THE COURT: You may go forward,

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, at this 
time I would like to dictate into the record a motionI

i to dismiss.!
THE COURT: Suppose you let me

hear your testimony and dictate your motion later.
I would prefer to hear —  well, you may tell me your 
own points.

!

MR. BURCH: For the record, I 
think the plaintiff has failed to prove any violation 
of the Civil Rights Act or any discrimination on the 
basis of race. The record shows he voluntarily remainedj
in the position of mail room porter despite the fact 
that he could have bid into higher paying positions 

I in Group 1 where there were jobs which he apparently 
contends now were more desirable. And in the second



1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

1 4

1 s
16.
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
23

place, I think the record shows conclusively that 
junior employees from Group 2 in fact did bid into 
Group 1 and have remained there since that time,

|and if Mr. Bradley had bid into such job, he would 
have remained there until he retired.

Finally, it seems to us that the 
basis of the complaint in essence is that Mr. Bradley's 
mail room job was not properly titled or compensated, 
and there is no evidence whatever that would support 
such a finding. I

THE COURT: Well, it may be that 
your motion has merit. I haven’t even had time to read 
over these union contracts and so forth, and I don’t 
think I can pass on it intelligently until I do so.

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, may the 
record show that Local 589 joins in the motion, and 
also in support of the motion that the record in our 
opinion shows conclusively that 589 had no responsi
bility with respect to the matters for which the 
plaintiff complains; that the agreement is now in the 
record, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 16, and shows that Local 
589 was not a party to that agreement. In addition 
to which the record shows conclusively that the 
plaintiff's grievances were fully discussed in the 
meeting of the union members of an integrated lodge



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13
14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

and that they passed it out of the lodge because the 
lodge had no authority or the ability to deal with 
them. And Mr. Bradley from the witness stand made 
no complaint about this action and he was present
at the meeting.

MS. McDONALD: Just for the record, 
I would like to oppose that motion. I don’t need to 
go into detail.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand 
that you do not favor it.

MR. BURCH: We will call Mr. Adams\
to the stand.



1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

21

22
23

2 4

25

I N  T H E  U N I T E D  S T A T E S  D I S T R I C T  C O U R T

FOR  TH E S O U T H E R N  D I S T R I C T  O F  T E X A S  

H O U S T O N  D I V I S I O N

HENRY H. BRADLEY

VS

SOUTHERN
COMPANY,

P A C I F I C  
E T  AL

R A I L R O A D

)
)
)
3
3
3

C I V I L  A C T I O N  
N O .  6 8 - H - 1 0 7 9

VOLUME I I

P A G E S  2 0 2  TH RO U G H  392

c m c  U S  DISTRICT COURT 
£R K , U . rticTH lC T OF TEXAS 
iJTHERN D ISTW CI u

r u . e d
D f c C S  ' 9 7 '

G E T l
O F F I C I A L  C O U R T  R E P O R T E R  
1 0 0 1<* U . S .  C O U R T H O U S E  
5 1 5  R U S K  S T R E E T  
H O U S T O N , T E X A S  7 7 0 0 2

L



1
2

3

4
5
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

BRIAN W. ADAMS,
a witness called for and on behalf of Defendant Rail
road, having been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follcws:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Adams, would you state your name, by whom you 
are employed and your position?

A My name is Brian W. Adams and I am employed by 
the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and 
as assistant manager of labor relations.

Q Is the Southern Pacific Transportation Company 
the successor to the Southern Pacific Company?

A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you been with the Southern Pacific?
A Well, wholly owned companies, I went to work for 

H & TC in 1925 and I have been continuously em
ployed by the subsequent companies who owned the 
same property until presently.

Q Would you tell us briefly some of the positions 
you have held with the company?

A Well, I began work as a crew caller in Ennis,
Texas and I became a secretary and a timekeeper, 
and then in the depression times I worked in



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

almost every clerical capacity. Every time I had 
an opportunity, I moved up from a crew caller to 
a clerk's job, and after the depression I became 
a timekeeper again and then I was chief timekeeper. 
I came to Houston in 1960, and I was an examiner 
in the personnel department which now is labor 
relations. In 1963 I was promoted to my present 
job, which is assistant manager of labor relations. 

Q Briefly, what are your responsibilities in your 
present job?

A Well, I am required to handle all matters for the 
clerks and for the telegraphers. I maintain 
agreements for those two particular crafts.

Q Does that include responsibility to participate 
in negotiations with the Brotherhood of Railway 
Clerks?

A Yes, sir.
Q I may have stated that name improperly.

I A I can’t remember the long one. We just call it
I by that, Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks. 
Q Have a substantial number of jobs you have held

in the past been covered by the agreements between 
the Southern Pacific or its companies and the 
clerks’ organization?

: A All of them through 1946, November in ’46.

3?



1
2
3

4

5
6

7

8
9

10

11

12

1 3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

2(
Q During this substantial period of time before

’46 or since, have you been a member of the clerks 
organization?

A I have, yes, sir.
Q Are you generally familiar with the jobs covered 

by the agreement between your company and the 
clerksf organization?

A Yes, sir, I am.
Q In your present job, is it your responsibility 

to discuss claims and grievances presented by 
either employees or by the organization?;

A Yes, sir.
Q Are you generally familiar with Mr. Henry Bradley’

job at the time he retired from the company?
A From observation, yes, sir.
Q Did you know Mr. Bradley before he retired?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Are you familiar with and have you worked with 

the labor agreement between the company and the 
clerks’ organization?

A I have, yes, sir.
Q I’ll refer you to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 and ask 

if you will identify that and tell us the status 
of that contract?

A This is the contract which was effective July 1,

J- VC>



205
1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18 
19

Q

I

i A

i

20 i

21

22
23

24
25

1956, and by that I mean that that was a re
compiling of the agreements that had been in 
effect for years and brought up to date. This is 
the current contract with the exception of some 
changes that have been made in it.
All right, sir. In December of 1965, for example,
did the company and the organization make an agree
ment which affected the seniority dates of em
ployees in the various clerical groups?
We did, yes, sir.
I think it would be well if you could tell the 
Court, first of all, briefly the nature of the 
various seniority groups before the 1965 agreement 
was entered into. What were the groups and in
general what category of jobs did they cover?

THE COURT: 1965? I understood 
you to say '56?

THE WITNESS: May I explain that 
this agreement first came into being in 
1917 when the railroads were under 
government control in World War I. 
General Hines was director general of 
the railroads, and he wrote for the em
ployees the first set of rules that they 
ever had which were standard. When the

i



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

railroads came out from under govern
ment control, then most of those rules 
were continually in effect by individual 
agreements on individual properties.

Q Let me interrupt you and ask that a booklet
entitled "United States Railway Administration" 
be marked as Defendant Company Exhibit 1 for 
identification. I will ask you to identify 
Defendant’s Exhibit 1 for us, if you can.

A This is a book, this is the printing of the
directive of the director general of railroads 
effective January 1, 1920. I think there was
probably, one prior to that.

THE COURT: We don’t need to go 
back before 1920, I would say. Let’s 
sort of get up to date.

THE WITNESS: The thing I’m saying 
is that the definitions were made by 
this book in 1920. Essentially, they 
have continued down to the 1956 agree
ment, Your Honor. The definition of 
clerical workers in this agreement was 
in three groups, actually there were 
four for listings, but they fell into 
three groups.

c2-ik



207
1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8 
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
17

18
19

20 

21 

22

23

24
25

Q Now, by this agreement, you were referring to 
Plaintifffs Exhibit 15?

A That's right. The agreement of July 1, 1956. 
Clerical workers in this Rule 2 are defined as 
employees who regularly devote not less than four 
hours per day to the writing and calculating 
incident to keeping records and accounts, rendition 
of bills, reports and so forth. It is printed 
out in the agreement. And then machine operators 
were also included in that, like the person who 
operates a comptometer machine or a bookkeeping 
machine and those kind of office machines. And 
then there were exceptions to those, and secondly 
were office employees and messengers and other 
employees doing similar work, and then students 
and apprentices who qualified for specific clericaL 
work as a machine operator, and then there were 
employees who performed manual work that did not 
require clerical ability.

Q Would you tell us with reference to those categories 
which classes of employees under the 1956 agreement 
iell into Seniority Group 1?

MS. MCDONALD: Excuse me. I have 
to object to that question, Your Honor,
I think the exhibit speaks for itself.



208
, f

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14 Q
15
16

17 i A
18

19 Q
20

21 A

22 Q
2 3 A1
24 i
25

i
1

But I do not mind him trying to explain 
it because it shortens it, but I think 
he is giving you an incorrect under
standing when he said that the contract 
says employees who regularly perform.
I think the contract says employees who 
spend more than four hours per day per
forming, and in that regard I think you 
are misleading the Court.

THE WITNESS: Perhaps you are right. 
I’m sorry. Who regularly devote not 
less than four hours to the work, to 
be exact.

Mr. Adams, tell us briefly which of those cate
gories of employees under the 1956 agreement were 
considered to be in Seniority Group 1.
Well, the clerk employees, the people who were 
defined as clerks.
Would that have included also the employees 
defined as machine operators?
Yes, sir.
Which categories were included in Seniority Group 2? 
Well, there were employees such as office employees 
and messengers and other employees. That group 
included the mail porters, the porters on the

A  '*0



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12
1 3

1 4

1 5

16
1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

„ . V- “7 • 77*?̂ %;;-..' ■ *.<* v U
____________________________________________________ 2

platforms and chore boys and crew callers, as a 
matter of fact in which group I was employed, and 
so forth.

Q Were you originally employed then in Seniority 
Group 2?

A I was, yes, si,r.
Q What employees generally were employed in 

Seniority Group 3?
A Well, those are manual laborers, such as a trucker 

on the dock and those kind of employees.
Q Under the 1956 agreement, what seniority rights, 

if any, did an employee retain if he promoted or 
transferred from one seniority group to another?

A Well, he retained all of his seniority and
accumulated more during the time he was promoted.

Q Would you tell us which article in that contract 
covered that question?

A I believe it is 49. May I see it?
Q Let me see if we can shorten it.
A If you will.
Q Page 10, Article 3, and ask you whether that dealt 

with the question of retaining seniority?
A You are right.
Q Was the provision in Article 3 on Page 10 concerni 

the retention of seniority continued in effect



210

1
2
3

4
5 I

6
7

8 1 
9

10 1
11
12
13 |
14 !I!
15
16
17

18
19

20

Q

A
Q

21
22 I

j
23 '

I
24
25 !

until the present time, or has that been changed? 
Well, on July 1st, 1971 we did away with the 
grouping, and now we only have one seniority groupl, 
and consequently the matter of moving from one 
group to another is now no longer there.
Let me ask you about some modifications of the 
1956 agreement. First, I will ask you whether in 
1963 you had any seniority breakdowns other than 
the seniority groups you have referred to, did 
you have districts or any other?
Yes, sir, as shown by Rule 6 of the agreement.
All right. In 1956 and until it was amended, did 
employees hold their seniority in only one of 
these departments or districts listed in Rule 6? 
1956, yes.

THE COURT: By district, you mean 
a geographical district?

THE WITNESS: Well, for instance 
in the general office, they had the 
office of the chief engineer, evaluation 
department, motive power and equipment, 
rail department, each department had a 
separate seniority all of its own.

THE COURT: You would have a 
Group 1, 2, 3 in the headquarters office)?



210

1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8 
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

until the present time, or has that been changed?
A Well, on July 1st, 1971 we did away with the

grouping, and now we only have one seniority groupj, 
and consequently the matter of moving from one 
group to another is now no longer there.

i
Q Let me ask you about some modifications of the

1956 agreement. First, I will ask you whether in 
1963 you had any seniority breakdowns other than 
the seniority groups you have referred to, did
you have districts or any other?

i
A Yes, sir, as shown by Rule 6 of the agreement.
Q All right. In 1956 and until it was amended, did 

employees hold their seniority in only one of 
these departments or districts listed in Rule 6?

A 1956, yes.
16 I

j

17 I
is :]

■

19

20 
21
22 I

i
23 '

i
24
2 5 i

THE COURT: By district, you mean 
a geographical district?

THE WITNESS: Well, for instance 
in the general office, they had the 
office of the chief engineer, evaluation 
department, motive power and equipment, 
rail department, each department had a 
separate seniority all of its own.

THE COURT: You would have a 
Group 1, 2, 3 in the headquarters office



210

1
2
3

4

5

6 
7

!
j

II|

A

Q

8 '
9

11 A
12 Q
13

|
14
15 A

i
16 iI
17 j
18 |

19

20
21
22 I

23 ’
!

24

25 I

until the present time, or has that been changed? 
Well, on July 1st, 1971 we did away with the 
grouping, and now we only have one seniority groupj, 
and consequently the matter of moving from one 
group to another is now no longer there.
Let me ask you about some modifications of the 
1956 agreement. First, I will ask you whether in 
1963 you had any seniority breakdowns other than 
the seniority groups you have referred to, did 
you have districts or any other?
Yes, sir, as shown by Rule 6 of the agreement.
All right. In 1956 and until it was amended, did 
employees hold their seniority in only one of 
these departments or districts listed in Rule 6? 
1956, yes.

THE COURT: By district, you mean 
a geographical district?

THE WITNESS: Well, for instance 
in the general office, they had the 
office of the chief engineer, evaluation 
department, motive power and equipment, 
rail department, each department had a 
separate seniority all of its own.

THE COURT: You would have a 
Group 1, 2, 3 in the headquarters office



210

l r

2 A
3

4 :
i

5
6
7

♦i Q

8
9

10 I
11 A
12 | Q
13 |

14 I
15 A!
16 fI
17

is ;
19

20
21
22 i

j
23 1

I
24

25 I

until the present time, or has that been changed? 
Well, on July 1st, 1971 we did away with the 
grouping, and now we only have one seniority groupj, 
and consequently the matter of moving from one 
group to another is now no longer there.
Let me ask you about some modifications of the 
1956 agreement. First, I will ask you whether in 
1963 you had any seniority breakdowns other than 
the seniority groups you have referred to, did 
you have districts or any other?
Yes, sir, as shown by Rule 6 of the agreement.
All right. In 1956 and until it was amended, did 
employees hold their seniority in only one of 
these departments or districts listed in Rule 6? 
1956, yes.

THE COURT: By district, you mean 
a geographical district?

THE WITNESS: Well, for instance 
in the general office, they had the 
office of the chief engineer, evaluation 
department, motive power and equipment, 
rail department, each department had a 
separate seniority all of its own.

THE COURT: You would have a 
Group 1, 2, 3 in the headquarters office!?



1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
lt>

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And another Group 1,

Q

A

Q
A
Q

Q

2, 3 seniority roster in another depart
ment even in the same building, or 
certainly in the same city?

THE WITNESS: That’s right, sir.
(By Mr. Burch.) What, if anything, was done in¥
1965 by agreement between the company and the 
labor organization that affected those districts? 
Well, we did away with these, this number of 
seniority rosters and we made four seniority 
rosters based on a geographical division of the 
railroad. Seniority District No. 1 is the general 
offices. And the purchasing of materials, the 
department there in Houston, and Seniority 
District 2 was the Lafayette division down in 
Louisiana. 3 is the central part of the railroad 
and 4 is the western, just to state it briefly. 
Now, do you recall the date of that agreement?
That is July 17, 1963.
Under that agreement and at the present time, 
your Seniority District No. 1 applies to what
area?
To the general office building.
Would most of the employees in that district work



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

2 5

in the Southern Pacific Building down here on 
Franklin?

A Well, there are quite a number over on Fulton 
Street and the purchasing materials department 
and sane few scattered around the city.

Q Was the mail room included in Seniority District 1 
in 1963?

A Yes, sir.
Q What effect, if any, did the 1963 agreement have 

on the transfer rights of employees between 
districts or groups?

A Well, between groups —
MS. MCDONALD: Excuse me, I would 

like to object to that again on the 
basis, I think, the agreement is the 
best evidence and speaks for itself.

THE COURT: What did you ask the 
witness?

MS. MCDONALD: He is referring to 
another agreement now.

MR. BURCH: I asked him what con
solidation had on transfer rights.

THE COURT: I think he can tell me 
that. It certainly would be easier 
than me figuring it out.



213
1
2

I---
j A

3

4

5

6
7

8 :
9

10

U I 
12
>3 !
14

15 1J
16

17 | 
18 '

19
20
21
22
23

24

25

Q

A

Q
A

The only thing that happened was, instead of having 
a dozen or more small rosters, we had one large 
one, and the rules remained the same so far as 
transferring between the groups in which one of 
these four districts, which finally consolidation 
came to.

MR. BURCH: I will ask to have 
marked for identification as Defendant 
Company's Exhibit 2 a document headed 
’‘Memorandum of Agreement".

Your Honor, at this time I'd like 
to offer Defendant Company Exhibit 1 
in evidence.

THE COURT: What is No. 1?
THE WITNESS: That is the 1920

procedure.
THE COURT: Received.

(By Mr. Burch.) I will hand you what has been 
marked for identification as Defendant Company 
Exhibit 2 and ask you if you can identify that? 
Yes, sir.
What is it, please?
This is an agreement that we made on December 29, 
1965 to provide for a dovetailing or top-and- 
bottoming, which is used of the seniority rosters



of Groups 1, 2, 3 in each separate seniority 
district.
All right, sir. This agreement was negotiated 
with the clerks’ organization, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Tell us, if you would, what was done to carry out 
the effect of this agreement in changing your 
seniority rosters. How was this agreement placed
into effect?
We remade the seniority roster on January 1, ’66 
to be in the manner in which the agreement now 
provided that seniority should rank.
Let me ask you specifically about the seniority 
roster for Group 2. Would that have been the 
roster in which Mr. Bradley appeared and held his 
seniority?
Yes, sir.
Effective January 1, 1966, what seniority, if any, 
did Mr. Bradley have in Group 1?
Well, he had a date of January 1, 1966.
Did Mr. Bradley receive any seniority at the same
time in Group 3?
He did, the same date.
Is it correct or not that effective January 1, 
1966, every clerical employee covered by the_____



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

union agreement was given a seniority rate in the 
other groups where he previously held no seniorit 
That’s right.A

Q

A

Q

A

Q

MR. BURCH: I would offer Defendant’ 
No. 2 in evidence.

THE COURT: Rece ived.
MR. BURCH: I ask that a document 

headed "Southern Pacific Transportation 
Company Seniority Roster District 1 
Group 1, January 1, 1971" be marked as 
Defendant Company Exhibit 3 for identi
fication, and that a document headed 
"Southern Pacific Transportation Company 
Seniority Roster District 1 Group 2, 
January 1, 1971" be marked for identi
fication as Defendant Exhibit 4.

Can you identify Defendant’s Exhibit 3 as a
Seniority Roster prepared by the company?
Yes, sir.
Is the effective date of that roster January 1,
1971?
Yes, sir.
There are sane red marks on that list. For exampl 
I see the word LA on there. What is that intended
to signify?

1 9 7



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A That is the person who has a Spanish surname, a
Latin American we originally called them. That is 
what we called them now as far as the records 
were concerned.

Q Were those marks put on there in preparation for 
this trial?

A Yes, sir.
Q And you also use a red "N" to indicate a Negro 

employee?
A Yes, sir.
Q Let me ask you with reference to Defendant’s

Exhibit 4, whether that is also a seniority list 
prepared by the company?

A Yes, sir.
Q At my request did you mark or cause it to be

marked the race Negro and Latin American employees 
on that roster?

A I did.
Q Let me refer you specifically to No. 4, and I will 

ask you where on that list would employees who 
were formerly in Group 2 appear?

A This is a Group 2 roster and they would appear in 
the order of their seniority in Group 2 here.

Q Let me ask you about a few examples here, just for
clarification and understanding.

3 1?*-



1
2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16
17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

MS. MCDONALD: Excuse me. I have 
to object to Mr. Adams' further testi
mony concerning this exhibit unless it
is going to be offered. It has just 
been identified.

MR. BURCH: I will offer it in 
evidence at this time and then I will 
ask him to explain it.

MS. McDONAJLD: I have no objection 
to either 3 or 4.

THE COURT: They are received.
Go ahead.

Q With reference to Exhibit 4, the first name is 
Mr. P. H. Fontana and shews occupation Group 1. 
What does that indicate?

A Well, Mr. Fontana began service on February 1st, 
1924 as a messenger, or some other job, that fell 
under Group 2 designation, and he now is employed 
in Group 1.

Q Under the name F. W. Battel, occupation is shewn 
as day mail porter, and a previous designation 
which is apparently passenger station. What does 
that indicate?

A That indicates that Mr. Battel was employed on 
March 21, 1929 in Group 2 and that he presently



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

2
holds assignment in Group 2 as a mail porter on 
the passenger station.

Q Would it be correct then that where this seniority 
roster shows Group 1, it indicates that an employe^ 
began in Group 2, moved to Group 1, yet continues 
to hold his seniority in Group 2?

A Well, we would have to stop at 1-1-66, because 
after that they are dovetailed dates and that 
could have come from sane other source other than 
being employed. But those on the first two sheets 
and down to January 1, 1966 all began their 
services in this group, in Group 2.

Q And beside their name there is a reference to
Group 1. It indicates that they have subsequently 
moved into and now serve in Group 1?

A That’s correct.
Q Now, I think it may already be clear, but can you 

show us on here the names of employees from 
Group 1 who were given seniority in Group 2 on 
January 1, 1966?

A Well, I would have to pick one I knew for the
reason that they could come from Group 3 to this 
as well as Group 1, and so I would have to say 
that there are a great many of them I know.
Parker and Trahan and any number of those —  well,

3  OC C*_



1
2
3

4

5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
21

23

24
25

-------------- — .......  ......... — Iothers that I know personally.
Q All right, sir. Let me ask you briefly about 

Exhibit 3, which is the seniority roster for 
District 1 Group 1, and I will ask you whether 
the format here is basically the same as the other 
Seniority roster?

A It is.
Q I will ask you whether you can identify any of 

the employees who were in Group 2 and who were 
given Group 1 seniority as of January 1, 1966?

A Well, this Battel that you saw on the other one, 
Bedford, I knew him, and D. Adams I know, and 
C. D. Thornton, and here is Moody that testified.

Q Mr. Moody that testified then appears on the 
second page, does he not?

A Actually that is Page 10.
Q And this shows at that time that he had the occu

pation of tracing clerk in the Houston zone, is 
that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q And his seniority then in Group 1 was January 1,

'6G, was it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q There has been testimony, Mr. Adams, to the effect 

that in July of this year the previous seniority

3 o /



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

2:

Q

groups were eliminated in some way. Would you 
tell us briefly what occurred and how this was 
brought about?
Well, we have a proposition pending right now 
which will shortly consolidate the telegraphers' 
craft with the clerks' craft, and all telegraphers 
and all clerks will be on a common seniority 
roster based on their original seniority dates.
The telegraphers didn’t have any group, that 
would be the station agents and tower men and 
people like that. So the three groups, division 
of seniority was no longer practicable or would 
not be when that occurred, because where would we 
put them together, 1, 2 or 3. So, we came to the 
conclusion that we should just put all three 
groups together in one group and give everybody 
on that group their original seniority date 
whether it came from Group 1, 2 or 3, and then 
there would be no 1, 2, 3, just a clerical employe 
and then a telegraph employee, and eventually put 
the two of them together based on a relative 
seniority date.
With reference then to the clerical employees as 
distinguished from telegraphers, for example 
Mr. Moody, who testified here today, have they



221

Q

1

2
3

4
5
6
7
8 

9

10
11
12 I A
13

14 i

15 I
16 1|
17

.8 |
19 !
20 !
21 i

22 I
23 ii
24 jI
25 !

Q

been given seniority in District 1 on the basis 
of when they were hired originally by the company? 
When they first went under the clerical agreement.; 
So, if Mr. Bradley were hired in the mechanical 
department, and of course that doesn't consolidate 
with clerks, but the first date they performed 
service as a clerk and stayed continuously, that 
is their date now.
At this time does their former seniority in 
Group 1, 2 or 3 have any significance under the 
labor agreement?
No, sir.
Mr. Adams, prior to 1966, just to pick a reference 
point, were the employees in Seniority Group 2 
predominantly Negro or white or what were the 
facts, as far as you recall?
I do not believe that they were predominantly I
Negro. I think, I do not have a '66 agreement 
handy, and I made a study and it seemed to me they 
were about fifty fifty between white and Negro.
It could have been this ’71 roster that I was 
looking at, which would be to all intents the same 
thing, except for those who have left the service. 
It would be the same people that we would be 
talking about. Mr. Bradley's name would not be



222
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8 
9

10
11
12
13

i

A
Q

A
Q
A
Q

14 ! A

15
16

17 i

18 *
19 !

20 
21 

22
23

24
25

Q

A
Q

on it because he is no longer in our service.
Have Negro employees in fact, prior to the 1971 
amendment, premoted from Group 2 positions to 
Group 1 positions?
They have, yes, sir.
Have other Negro employees been hired into 
Group 1 positions?
They have.
From outside the company?
They have.
At my request in preparation for this hearing, 
did you make an analysis of the racial breakdowns 
of Groups 1, 2, 3 as of March of this year?
Yes, sir.

MR. BURCH: I will ask that the 
document entitled "Total Employees in 
District No. 1 as of 3-31-71" be marked j 
for identification as Defendant Company 
Exhibit 5.

Is Defendant Exhibit 5 the document that I just 
asked you about, that you had prepared?
Yes, it is.
Would you explain to the Court what that document
purports to show?
Well, I had a check made. I am not positive I

3c + *



223
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5 
16

17
18 
19

20

21
22
23

24
23

did this myself, but it was done at my direction, 
where we counted the number of employees in each 
of the three groups, 1, 2 and 3, by race. You

!
see, we are not allowed under the law to keep any 
kinds of records as to what a person’s race is. 
There is one record, but it is sealed in our 
computer for the purposes of making the EE0-1 
report which I am sure you are familiar with. But
we make a visual check and we have people who

j
know what they are and so we asked them just to 
mark the seniority roster for us, and then weii counted them. We counted and found that as of 
March 31, 1971 there were a total of five hundred 
forty-one employees in all three groups in 
District 1, three eighty-three were white and 
one hundred thirty-one were Negro and forty-seven■
were Latin Americans, and the percentages were 
sixty-seven percent, twenty-four percent and nine 
percent. And Group 1 was seventy-five percent, 
sixteen percent and nine percent.

Q I won’t ask you to read all those. The second
part of the exhibit has the heading "Hired in the 
District No. l". Would you tell us briefly whatij
those figures show and the source? 

i A In 1970 we hired one hundred three people into

Jo i



224

i

1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8 
9

10 
11 

12

13

14

15
16
> 7  | 

18

» i
20

,i
2 1  i
22
23 !j

i

24
25

Q

Q

A
Q
A

District No. 1, sixty-nine were white, twenty-four 
Negro and ten were Latin Americans. I ran a 
computation of percentages on that.
Then do you also have a figure on employees hired 
in District No. 1 through March 31 in 1971?
Yes, sir. We had hired thirty-two. They were
divided twenty-nine and three.

MR. BURCH: I offer Exhibit No. 5
in evidence.

THE COURT: Received.
(By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, does the company have 
a policy concerning the implementation of Civil 
Rights Act and Equal Employment Opportunities?
We do.
Briefly what is that policy?
Well, in 1962 the company joined the President’s 
Plan for Progress, and we were a little proud, 
we were the first railroad company who signed it, 
and we pledged ourselves to equal opportunity to 
everyone without regard to race or other 
considerations, except ability. And since that 
time we have followed that strictly. In recent 
years, because we felt like that perhaps not 
everyone understood the meaning of affirmative 
action, we have devoted a great deal of time to

<a_



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20
21
1im- <w

23

24
25

education of our people as to what affirmative 
action in this connection was concerned with.
It is not enough to wait for the people to come 
and ask you for a job, but we must go out and 
seek people for the jobs we have.

Q What policy have you followed in effect with 
respect to seniority Group 1, clerical jobs?

A Well, we have hired any competent person without 
regard to race or color.

Q Have you made any effort one way or another with ■ 

regard to increasing the number of Negro 
employees in these jobs?

A Yes, sir, we have. We have gone to the sources.
We think with a very outstanding success.

Q By source, briefly what do you mean?
A Well, I don't know all of the initials that cover 

them, and since I do not know this myself, but 
there are certain groups in town who provide you 
with names of competent people, if you will go 
and ask. I was just trying to think for sure, 
we contact Southern constantly, and the other 
people, like I say I do not know the names of 
all of these people who make that kind of an 
effort for you, but we have our director of 
employment constantly on the move. He goes to

S c  7<Ls



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21

22
23

24
2 5

the high schools every year and explains what 
employment we have and tries to counsel with the 
students as to how to get a job. Maybe even if 
we didn’t have one, and so forth.

Q Briefly, has the company in any way publicized 
within the organization its position on equal 
employment opportunities?

A We have, yes.
Q And in what way, briefly, how have you done this? j
A We have a house organ or bulletin, as we saw back

in the evidence there, and we published in all 
those bulletins when the plans for progress were 
signed. We published that for the information 
of all the employees, and since we have had any 
number of additions to that, or references to 
that which we try to disseminate to all the people.

MR. BURCH: I would ask to have a 
document consisting of two pages, first 
page addressed to Mr. B. W. Gibson and 
bearing the date of June 8, 1967 to be 
marked as Defendant Company Exhibit 6 
for identification.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, can you identify
D e f e n d a n t ’s Exhibit 6 as a Xerox copy of documents 
which you supplied me in preparation for this tria]

Jo fra.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21
22
23
24
25

A
Q

A

Q

A

I can, yes, sir.
What are these documents and where were they 
filed and maintained in the company's records?
This was a bid submitted by Mr. Henry Bradley for 
a position of timekeeper in the accounting depart
ment on June 7, 1967, and a copy of a letter he 
had addressed to the employment office asking that 
that bid be withdrawn.
Does the company maintain bids and related notes 
like this in the usual course of business?
For a period of time, until the new ones begin 
to shove the old ones out of the back of the 
drawer. They are not permanent records.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a 
question. The witnesses have spoken 
about bidding for a job. Does that 
mean that a vacancy has occurred in the 
organization through death or retirement 
or scmething of that sort?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So a new person is goin 

to fill the job, and I take it that 
perhaps you post notices and anyone who 
is interested can apply, and the one 
that has the greatest seniority, does



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

he get it?
THE WITNESS: Fitness and ability 

being equal. In other words, a person 
has to qualify for a job.

THE COURT: If you can't take 
shorthand you would not be a secretary?

THE WITNESS: If a person does not 
know rates, he cannot be a rate clerk.

THE COURT: I did not quite under
stand the term bidding for a job. Now, 
let me go a little further. In the 
event you have to lay off some people, 
that sometimes happens in the railroad 
business I understand, you normally have 
to lay off the ones with the least 
seniority?

THE WITNESS: That is the ultimate. 
If we were going to make a lay-off, we 
pick the jobs that we think we can best 
do without, and then we abolish those 
jobs. If that is a senior person on 
those jobs, then he displaces, but 
eventually the younger employees of 
however number you are talking about 
are furloughed.

njV<9 â



1
229

7
8 | . 
9 I

10 Ij
11

1 2  i
13 ;I
14 !
15 |
16

17

18 

19
20 I|!
21 i
22 j

23

24 1
25

THE COURT: If it were mail porters!,
i }

for instance, and you were going to let 
a couple of them go, the ones junior in 
service would be the ones that got the 
ax?

THE WITNESS: Ultimately, yes, sir.
MR. BURCH: I am sorry, Your Honor,!

I'm not absolutely sure whether I offerejd 
it, but I do offer Defendant Company j j
Exhibit 6 in evidence.

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
ITHE COURT: Received.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, to pursue the Court’s 
line of questioning, I will ask you whether the 
bid dated June 7 submitted by Mr. Bradley is a 
typical bid form, is this the way bids are normall|y 
submitted?

A Yes, sir. I think that is a form prepared and 
placed around for people to have to do this.

Q When a job is bid, tell us physically and proce- 
durely what actually takes place, how is it 
announced?

A It is made in triplicate because I assume they
wanted to maintain one for their own copy. But a 
copy is mailed or sent to Mr. Gibson, who is head

V.fn■j±

l ■f



230
of the employment office, and has this task for 
the general offices of making these assignments, 
keeping the records and a copy goes to Mr. Greater, 
who is the local chairman, I believe, for the 
district. He uses it for whatever purposes he so 
desires. They put all of these in the file to
gether with a copy of the bulletin that has been 
issued. In other words, this was for bulletin 
No. 162 and they put these in the file with 162, 
and then get them all out when the bulletin has 
run its course and see who is the senior and was 
he a qualified clerk for this position. If so, 
then they assign him.
Let me direct your attention now to Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 15, the blue contract, Page 16, Rule 12.
I will ask you whether that is the provision in 
the clerks' agreement that spells out the basis iifor premotions?
It is, yes, sir.

MR. BURCH: If I might, I would 
just like to read that rule briefly. 
"Employees covered by these rules shall 
be in line for promotion. Promotion 
shall be based on seniority, fitness and 
ability; fitness and ability being



231
1 !
2 | 

3

4 !
5
6

7

8

9 | 

10

11 i
12 |

13 i
14 I

15

16 I
. 7  iI
18 !

19 !
20 j

21 I
22 i
23 j

24
23

sufficient, seniority shall prevail.
"Note: The word "sufficient" is 

intended to more clearly establish the 
right of the senior clerk or employee 
to bid in a new position or vacancy 
where two or more employees have adequatje 
fitness and ability."

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Now, Mr. Adams, in application 
of this rule, has the company promoted the best 
qualified bidder in every instance, or have they 
applied this rule as closely as possible?

MS. MCDONALD: Your Honor, I ob
ject to that question. I do not think 
Mr. Adams is in position to make the 
conclusion whether or not the company 
has in all instances promoted the best 
qualified persons. That would be up to 
the individual supervisors, as I gather 
from his description of his duties.

THE COURT: I expect there is merit 
to that. I will sustain it.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, are you familiar with 
the basis on which bids are evaluated?

A Yes, sir.
Q Is it one of your responsibilities to help resolve

3



1 any questions that might arise concerning a bid?
2 ! A

1
3 l Q
4

5 i A
6  l Q
7 j

8  !

9 A
10

11 |

12

1 3 Q
1 4  i

1 5
j

1 6 A
1 7  i Q
1 8

IQ A

20

21

22 Q
2 3

2 4 A
1

2 5 Q

232
1

Y e s .
iOn what basis has the company selected successful 

bidders in actual practice?
On the basis of seniority.
Do you know approximately how many positions are ! 
filled by bid any particular year in the clerical 
bargaining unit? j
I couldn’t tell you off the cuff, Mr. Burch.

|
MR. BURCH: I would like to have 

marked for identification Company Exhibit 
No. 7.

(By Mr. Burch.) I will ask you to identify 
Company Exhibit 7 as a document which you prepared 
at my request for this trial?
I can, yes.
Tell us what this purports to show and the source 
of the information, please.
It shows the number of vacancy bulletins which 
were issued in District 1 in the year 1969 and ’70 
and the first three months of '71.
Does the company keep records of the numbers of
bids that are posted?
Well, we keep the bids for so long a time, yes, si::. 
Did you have bids available to show the number of

3 /  +  ^



233
1
2

4
5
6

7
8 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18 
19

Q

Q

A
Q

:

21
22
23

24
25 I

A
Q

jobs posted in the years prior to 1969?
No, sir, we didnft have complete records.

MR. BURCH: I offer Company Exhibit! 
No. 7 in evidence.

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.

Mr. Adams, so far as you know or can make a 
reasonable estimate, beginning in 1966 and con
tinuing to date, has the volume of jobs posted 
been approximately the same as it is today? 
Probably there were fewer in '66, but beginning 
in '67 we began to accumulate some more work into 
this district and we put on a great many jobs, 
yes, sir.
In 1966 would there have at least been over a 
hundred jobs bid?
I am reasonably sure so, yes, sir.
The position vacancies reflected here in 1969, 
for example, would those include positions that 
Mr. Bradley would have been eligible to bid for, 
if he had desired?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Adams, let me direct your attention now to 
Mr. Bradley and his testimony earlier today con
cerning conversations with you.

J/i <L-



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

A Yes, sir.
Q When did you first become acquainted with

Mr. Bradley to at least know and identify him?
A Well, I came to Houston in 1960. I don't recall 

knowing him prior to that time. So it was some
time after 1960 as I would go to the mail room 
for various purposes, I would see him or see him 
in the hall.

Q Do you recall ever having any conversations with 
Mr. Bradley concerning his job in the mail room 
or anything related to that?

A I believe, I am sure that he came to my office on 
one occasion. He may have come other times than 
that, but one that I know of distinctly. We 
talked in the hall on a number of occasions as we 
passed and talked.

Q I am asking you now about conversations you had 
with him regarding his job or rate, title, any
thing related to his position.

A Well, he mentioned that in addition to coming to 
see me in my office, and he mentioned to me a 
time or two other than that, but those are more 
or less casual.

Q Let me ask you this specifically, about the
conversations in your office, and I will ask you

3



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

2>

first if you will tell us as best you can about 
when that occurred.

A My recollection, Mr. Burch, is that was in 1963 
after we had consolidated the seniority rosters 
into the four districts, and as best I can 
recollect it had to be after 1963, because before 
that time in February of 1963 I was promoted to 
this job. Before that time it would have been 
none of my business, what he was talking about.

Q Is there any reason why you believe the conversati 
occurred around 1963?

A I may have been relating to the conversation with 
Mr. Shepherd which I know to be just prior to 
that. So I know a great many people talked to 
me in 1963 who were a little confused about this 
consolidation. I think, I have no record of it, 
but let me say it that way, of a date.

Q Identify Mr. Shepherd, if you would, please.
A Mr. Shepherd, Mr. F. L. Shepherd is employed as a 

mail porter and not in this office but over at the 
depot, and he asked me —

Q What was his race, let me ask you that?
A He was a Negro. He is a Negro, excuse me.
Q I will not ask you to go into any conversation

with him. But I will ask, in 1963, did Mr. Shephe



236
1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

bid into a Group 1 position?
A Yes, sir, the date escapes me.
Q That's all right. That would appear in the 

seniority roster?
A Yes, sir, it would.

| Q Tell us as far as you can recall what occurred
in the conversation in your office with Mr. Bradley.

A Well, Mr. Bradley asked if he could see me, and 
I told him to come at his convenience, or con
venience of the mail room. I was going to be in|
that day, as I recall. He came in and told me 
that he thought his job was not properly classified 
nor was he properly classified, and I attempted 
to explain to Mr. Bradley that that was the 
classification that had been placed on that type 
o f  work since an agreement existed. When those 
p e o p l e  came under the agreement rules, that they 
were classified as all others who had been under 
agreement rules prior to that time were classified. 
And that his seniority was established as had 
everyone else's been established according to the 
rules. And that there simply was no reason for 
any change being made, so far as his title or his 
rate was concerned.

Q Did you tell Mr. Bradley in substance that his



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

2
work was not porter’s work?

A I did not. No, sir.
Q Did you tell him in substance, or in so many words 

that it was not the company that was preventing 
him being reclassified, but it was the union?

A I did not. No, sir.
Q Tell us, as far as you can recall, the substance

of any other conversations you had with Mr. Bradlej; 
concerning his job. I believe you said you might 
have seen him in the hall?

A They were in essence about the same thing, and my 
position was the same as it had been.

Q In any of those subsequent conversations, did you 
tell Mr. Bradley that you thought his work was 
really not porter’s work?

A No, sir, I did not.
Q Does the railroad at this time make reports to 

the Interstate Commerce Commission concerning 
employees and nmnbers of employees?

A Yes, sir.
Q Very briefly, what is the nature of that report?
A Well, every month, and we recapitulate it every

year, the company makes a report of the number of 
employees who were employed in the various classi
fications set up by the Interstate Commerce



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
2=»

Commission, and the number that they had on the 
middle of the month, and the number they had 
during the entire month. And then the hours that 
they worked in each classification, straight time 
and overtime and time paid for and not worked, 
and the money which matched those hours.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I beg the 1
Court’s pardon. I need to ask Mr. Adams 
if he will get out a couple of books 
which I think he has.

THE COURT: Well, it is about time 
to knock off for today. Hew much more 
will you have with this gentleman?

MR. BURCH: I think I will have 
about fifteen minutes more with him.

THE COURT: Do you have any testi
mony other than Mr. Adams?

MR. BURCH: At this time, Your 
Honor, unless we have some rebuttal 
testimony I do not anticipate we will 
have another witness.

THE COURT: Well, let’s recess 
until 9:30 in the morning.

(Adjournment at 5:30 p.m.
until 9:30 a.m. August 19, 1971.)

j1 -i.; i*.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

AUGUST 19, 1971

THE COURT: Are we ready to go 
forward this morning, ladies and gentlemen?

MR. BURCH: I can finish up with
Mr. Adams.

BRIAN W. ADAMS,
the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment, 
resumed the stand and was examined and testified 
further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CCNT'D.)

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Adams, first let me ask you about a couple of 
matters that were raised yesterday. One concerned 
a document in connection with Mr. Bradley's 
retirement from the railroad which showed his 
classification as mail clerk. That appears, I 
believe, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. I will show 
you a copy of it. You recall that testimony and 
discussion on that document?

A Yes, sir.

3+-I4.*



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

IS
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

2 S

2-
Q After the conclusion of the proceedings here

yesterday, have you made an effort to determine 
whether the Southern Pacific Transportation Compan|: 
has in its files in Houston any of the documents 
concerning Mr. Bradley's retirement?

A No, sir, we do not.
Q Do you have in your files in Houston, for example,

the form that Mr. Bradley was asked about which 
he filled out or had filled out by a retirement 
bureau clerk?

A We do not have them here, no, sir.
Q Do you know the procedure generally that is

followed upon the retirement of an employee with 
respect to corranunications between the government 
agency and your company?

A Well, as I understand it, the railroad retirement 
board mails some of these documents directly to 
the secretary of the board of pensions in San
Francisco.

Q That is a Southern Pacific bureau?
A I'm talking about Mr. Pretty, who is the secretary 

of the board of pensions for Southern Pacific 
Company involving all of the related properties,
yes .

Q The railroad retirement board you referred to is

■£. ti_ -



1
2
3
4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17
18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

a governmental agency, is it not?
A Yes, sir. They mail two of them to him and one

to Mr. Breed, who is the assistant auditor of the 
Southern Pacific Transportation Company here in 
Houston, and he fills in sane payroll records and 
forwards it on to Mr. Pretty. That is the general 
way it is handled.

Q Does Mr. Breed here in Houston receive a copy of 
applicantsf forms that are submitted to the 
retirement bureau, or do you know?

A No, sir, I do not think so.
Q Do you know whether or not this card shown as

Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is made out in San Francisco 
or in Houston?

A It is not made out in Houston. Let me say it that
way.

Q Do you know whether this card and formal appli
cation is based on the information submitted by 
the applicant to the retirement board or what the
facts are?

A Fran what either the retirement board did for him 
or he did for the retirement board, this would be 
taken and put on this card by people at San Franci

Q Are the people in San Francisco who handle these 
records familiar with the job assignments of



1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Houston employees?
A Oh, no.
Q There was testimony yesterday about a Mr. Charles C 

White who did sane work in the mail room. Do you 
recall that testimony?

A Yes, sir.
Q And Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 is in evidence, and it 

is a card —
MS. MCDONALD: Excuse me, Mr. Burch. 

I think the judge overruled my attempt 
to introduce Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 into 
evidence.

THE COURT: What is 7?
MR. BURCH: This is the Employment 

Commission card.
THE COURT: It was not admitted.
MR. BURCH: I beg your pardon. I 

stand corrected.
Q Let me withdraw that question. Let me withdraw 

the whole line of questioning, I think we can 
shorten it.

At my request after the trial recessed 
yesterday, did you attempt to find the personnel 
record of a Charles C. White who had been employed 
by the company?

3^l / <



Yes, sir.
I will show you a file document and ask you if 
that is the personnel file for Mr. White?
Yes, sir.

MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I object 
to this questioning. I think it is 
irrelevant to the lawsuit. You denied 
me the opportunity to introduce in 
evidence my exhibit of Charles White.

THE COURT: No. As I remember, 
you were interrogating to show there 
was sane effort to conceal the employment 
card or something like that. It carried 
the inference that he was classified in 
a different category from the plaintiff, 
and I simply suggested that that did not 
prove anything because the plaintiff 
didn't know what his classification was, 
and the card wasn’t in the place where 
the others were kept. I venture to say 
that defense counsel is trying to prove 
what his classification actually was.

MS. McDONALD: That has nothing to
do with my Exhibit 7.

THE COURT: No, it doesn't.



f
244

l

2 i
3
4

5 'i6
7

8 I
9 

10 
11
12 |
13 |
14 ,

15
16 !
17
18
19

20 
21 
22
23

2 4

2 5

Q

A
Q

A

MR. BURCH: Mr. Bradley's testimony 
was, and I don't think it is extremely 
important and I am going to try to be 
brief, I will show plaintiff's counsel 
the record I just had the witness 
identify. I do not propose to place it 
in evidence as an exhibit.

Mr. Adams, what do the company's records show 
Mr. White's classification was?
Extra mail porter.
With reference to that file, can you tell us 
briefly the circumstances under which Mr. White 
was employed, how long he was there and whether 
he performed any work for the company?
Well, this file reflects that Mr. White was 
referred to —

MS. MCDONALD: Excuse me. I think 
if Mr. Adams is going to refer to the 
file, I would like to have it in evidence 
because I want to cross examine him.

THE COURT: You may have it avail
able to you.

The file reflects that this man was referred to 
the employment bureau by the Texas Employment
Commission.

x



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
2 i
22
23
24
25

THE COURT: All I am really interes 
in is whether there was some discrimi
nation because White was a white man.

THE WITNESS: None at all, sir.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let 

me withdraw that conclusion. He also 
is classified as a mail porter or extra 
mail porter?

THE WITNESS: That is true.
THE COURT: During the time he 

worked in the mail room?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BURCH: With reference to 

whether or not his card was concealed, 
again I do not think it is important.
If I may, I will tell you what I want 
to establish through the witness. It 
is my understanding that he was employed 
as a so-called hard-core employee, that 
he did not cane to work more than maybe 
the day he showed up, and then he was 
terminated very shortly thereafter.

THE COURT: That is not of any 
consequence as far as I am concerned.



246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18 
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

MR. BURCH: My point in explaining 
the fact that his time card may or may 
not have been handled like everyone else's.

THE COURT: I am not that impressed 
with that.

MR. BURCH: The file is available.
THE COURT: Make it available to 

Mrs. McDonald for cross examination.
Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, you were asked yester

day briefly whether the railroad was required to 
classify and report statistics on employees to

<

Interstate Commerce Commission. Is it so required?
i A It is.

Q I hand you a document marked for identification 
as Southern Pacific Exhibit 8 consisting of sane 
Xerox pages, and at the same time I hand you a 
book entitled "Rules for Reporting Information on 
Railroad Employees." Tell us first what this 
book is and what use the railroad had made of it 
in the past.

j A This is a book issued by the United States Rail-
j road Labor Board which was carried out by the 

Interstate Commerce Commission.
Q When was that book issued?

: A This copy was issued in May of 1921.

J-i £



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q The pages Xeroxed here, are they copies of some 
of the pages from that book which you prepared 
at my request?

A They are.
Q Do they show, for example, Pages 1 through 6 which 

includes introductory statement?
A They do.
Q Does it also include Pages 26 and 27, Pages 78 and 

79?
A Yes, sir, they do.
Q With reference to that exhibit, would you tell us 

how that was used, very briefly, in classifying 
employees, specifically including Mr. Bradley's
job?

A Well, there were some five hundred or more classi
fications of employees in railroad service, and it 
was kind of a hodge-podge affair. So the United 
States Labor Board, through the Interstate Commerc 
Commission, set up these lists of employees' title 
and job functions and classified them in sane, 
oh, I don't remember right offhand, about one 
hundred twenty-eight separate classifications in 
order that statistics might be available as to 
the cost of wages and the hours worked by people 
in various groups. They call them divisions,



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

which is a division of the labor force.
| Q Let me interrupt you, if I may. In the interest 

of brevity, did the classes of employees set up 
by this book correspond in any way to the calsses 
of clerical employees that were employed by the 
company after the book was in effect?

A Yes, sir, it did.
Q I understand that there is a subsequent book which

I will ask you about. I will ask you simply this, 
from the time this book was published until it 
was superceded, did the Southern Pacific at all 
times classify its employees consistent with the 
rules in this book?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, let me refer you to Pages 26 and 27 and I 

will ask you whether there is a division there 
entitled No. 20, elevator operators and other 
office attendants?

A Yes, sir.
Q How was the mail room porter job classified, was 

it handled under that?
A They have a classification office porter, office 

porter in that classification, yes.
Q And in reports submitted, was the mail room porter 

job reported under that category?

O <4̂ ,.



I I 249

13

14

15
16 |

17 !
! 8  j

19

20
21
22
23

24 Q
25 i

Yes, sir.
Let me refer you now to the copy of Page 78, and 
I will ask you whether there is again reference 
to office porter at the bottom of the page?
Yes, sir.
In your judgment and in the railroad's practice 
in reporting jobs, state whether or not the mail 
room porter was considered to be under that 
general definition?
They were, yes, sir.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, if I may 
read in the record for emphasis, there 
are some illustrative examples and one 
of them, office porter, gives this 
definition: Porter assisting in moving 
furniture, carrying heavy parcels, 
carrying mail, sorting papers, opening 
mail. I offer Defendant Company's 
Exhibit 8 in evidence.

MS. McDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. BURCH: The book is available 

for your viewing, Mrs. McDonald.
I will hand you what has been marked for identi
fication as Southern Pacific Exhibit 9. I will

JJ/<c -



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
i  e>

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

25
also hand you a book entitled "Rules Governing 
the Classification of Railroad Employees," and I 
will ask you whether Exhibit 9 consists of pages 
Xeroxed from that book at my request?

A They do, or it does.
Q Mr. Adams, what is the book that I have just

handed you, and how does it relate to the earlier
book?

A This is the revision of the numbers and a kind of 
contraction of the number of various divisions 
that were carried in 1951 when this book was issuep

Q If I may try to clear up something, I will ask 
you whether the division numbers that appear in 
these two books, and the grade numbers, are the 
same numbers that we have been talking about in 
your seniority groups, in your seniority districts?

A I did not get all of that, Mr. Burch, I’m sorry.
Q Let me refer you to the one we are talking about, 

Exhibit 9. Look at Pages 18 and 19 where there 
are reporting divisions.

A Yes, sir.
Q And there are numbers there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those numbers the same as any numbers that

the company and union used for their seniority

J.



1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

groups and districts?
A Well, these are the groups of employees that we

had, and they are the same that were in the other, 
except seme contractions among them.

Q You say the ones in Exhibit 9 are the same as in 
Exhibit 8, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q There has been testimony about your agreement with 

the clerks, and seniority districts and seniority 
groups.

A Yes, sir.
Q And those are given numbers as I understand it 

by the company and organization?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are those numbers the same as the numbers used

in these government books?
A No, sir, they are not the same. We don't use that 

number in our agreement at all, no, sir.
Q The second book that I handed you was promulgated 

in 1951, was it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Since that time has the Southern Pacific attempted 

to use the general categories and classifications 
of employees that are reflected in this?

A The second book?



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do your job titles respond exactly to these

t itles?
A Not at all.
Q But your jobs are grouped for reporting purposes 

in these categories, is that right?
A That is correct, sir.
Q The last page of Exhibit 9 is headed "Monthly 

Report,” is that a copy of the report form that 
is used?

A Yes, sir, in greatly reduced size, yes.
Q With reference to Page 18 in Exhibit 9, would you

tell us what category there is used to cover the 
mail porter position?

A No. 16.
MR. BURCH: I offer Exhibit 9 in 

evidence.
MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. BURCH: The books are being 

made available to plaintiff’s counsel.
Q Mr. Adams, does the railroad routinely prepare

lists of job titles covered by the clerks' contrac 
along with the rates of pay?

C



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 3
ib
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2 5

21
A Yes, sir.
Q I hand you what has been marked for identification 

as Defendant Company Exhibit 10 and ask you if you 
can identify that?

A Yes, sir. This is a copy of the rate chart show ink 
the titles and positions and rates of pay extending 
from April 1, 1971 through April 1, 1973.

Q Do you know approximately when this was prepared?
A Oh, approximately the date that it became effective 

a month or two off.
Q That would have been prepared about July of this

year?
A Yes, sir.
Q At the time this was prepared, you still had 

seniority groups, did you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q 1, 2 and 3?
A Yes, sir.
Q Looking at the Exhibit 1 on the left-hand side,

I will ask you whether the numerals 11 that show 
up on the first page indicate the seniority
district and group?

A They do.
Q Does the first digit indicate the district?
A It does.

■ S3 f



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
21
21
2 S

Q And the second indicates the group?
A It does.
Q So these names or positions all happen to have 

been in Group 1, is that correct?
A They were, yes, sir.
Q Referring to the second page, the position 005

messenger, it has the No. 12 in front of it. Does 
that indicate it was in Group 2?

A I was on the wrong page, excuse me. Oh, yes,
005?

Q Yes, messenger.
A Yes, sir, 12, yes, sir.
Q The same identification is used throughout the 

exhibit, is it not?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q I believe that you have made seme corrections 

just in longhand on this list, have you not?
A I did, yes, sir.
Q Is this sometimes necessary when you received

these —
A We check them back and maybe sane jobs have been 

pulled off or something like that in the inter
vening period, and we strike them out.

Q Does this give you the positions and the applicabl 
rates of pay extending through April of 1973 for



255
jobs covered by the clerks' agreement?
It does.
And that would be for this seniority District 1?
It does.

MR. BURCH: I offer Defendant's 
Exhibit 10 in evidence.

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I might

say that Mrs. McDonald put in sane 
earlier lists and this simply brings it 
up to date.

Mr. Adams, at my request in preparation for this 
hearing, did you go through the lists of job titles 
and rates in the former Group 1 and identify sane 
which had rates of pay comparable to those of the
head mail room porter as Mr. Bradley described
his job?
I did.
I will ask you if you can identify a document 
marked as Southern Pacific Exhibit 11 as the list 
I have asked you about?
It is, yes, sir.
After the list was first prepared, did you go back 
and add a number of incumbent employees and their



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

race on those jobs?
A I did, yes, sir.
Q Does that appear in the right-hand margin?
A Yes, sir.
Q In referring to Negro and in referring to white?
A Yes, sir.
Q Incidentally, if I might digress and refer you 

back to the list of titles and rates, would you 
tell us where in reference to Mr. Bradley’s 
former position appears, and I will direct you to 
Page 14 and see if you can find it there?

A I will see if I can find 14. Yes, sir, Page 14.
Q Does his former position and position now occupied 

by Mr. Mackey appear as Position No. 030?
A It does.
Q And the title is what?
A Mail room porter.
Q At my request, have you looked through the company 

records that reflect the title for that job to 
determine whether it has ever had a different
t itle?

A Since the records were available to me it has not.
Q Do those go back to approximately the 1930’s?
A Probably not quite that far, back at least beyond

when they were brought under union scope.

/ - » k a



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q Is it correct or not that the position occupied
by Mr. Bradley has historically had a higher rate 
of pay than the other mail room porters?

A It did, yes, sir.
lQ Has his title ever been on the company's documents 

as head mail roan porter?
A Not that I can find, no, sir.
Q Now, if I may direct you back to Exhibit 10 —

I beg your pardon, 11 —  each of these positions 
has after it a description of the position. Will 
you tell me, please, who prepared that and what 
was the basis for these descriptions?

A Well, I prepared that myself, Mr. Burch. Now,
I went to the supervisors in each of these 
departments and asked them briefly just what does 
this job do.

Q Were you familiar at all with any of these jobs, 
at least in a general nature, before you made 
that investigation?

A Some of them, yes, sir.
Q I will not ask you about all of them, but just 

a few. First, let me direct your attention to 
Item 1, Position No. 169, mail clerk, Houston 
zone office. From your investigation, are you 
familiar with that job?

J J 9 j u



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A I am, yes, sir.
Q Tell us where the occupants of that job work and 

briefly what he does.
A Well, he works on the 6th floor and they have a

small portion of the office set aside as a mail
room for that particular accounting department, 
and he worked in there. Briefly, as I stated here 
he takes care of the outbound mail as it comes 
up, and it goes to the central mail bureau, and 
after that is closed it goes directly to the 
post office from that location.

Q By central mail bureau, are you talking about the 
place where Mr. Bradley worked?

A The central mail room or bureau as it may be calle
Q Does he have any duties in your judgment which are

clerical in addition to those —
A Well, that doesn't take all of his time, and the 

other part of his time he supposedly assists the 
clerk in that department in whatever they find 
for him to do, yes, sir.

Q All right. In the area where this person handles 
mail, or is there a board with pigeonholes for 
distributing mail?

A There is, yes, sir.
Q Is there a scale for weighing mail?

i.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

A There is.
Q How does it compare with the scale that was in 

Mr. Bradley’s former work location?
A Well, just to look at it, it is the same kind of

scale.
Q In the area on the 6th floor, are there some

charts and booklets available with postal rates 
and information?

A There are, yes, sir.
Q As far as you can determine, are they the same 

or different than the books and charts in 
Mr. Bradley's former working place?

A They appear to me to be the same.
Q What volume of mail is handled by the 6th floor

department, if you can tell us briefly, how does 
it compare with other parts of the SP office?

A Probably, well, I couldn’t estimate by percentage 
or anything, but a great part of the volume of 
mail for the building comes there.

Q In your own terms, would you tell us how the mail
handling duties of the mail clerk in question 
compare with the mail-handling work in Mr. Bradley 
location?

A Well, except for volume, I would say they were 
pretty well the same.

•J 4- i.



260
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9

10

11

12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

Q The position 169 was in which seniority group,
1 or 2?

A It was in 1.
Q In your judgment, based on your knowledge of

I
Mr. Bradley's position and the knowledge you have 
acquired of these other positions, what is the

I comparison between them in terms of job requirements, 
skills, ability, any other relevant factor?I

A I would not say there was much difference there 
at all, as you have asked.

Q In your judgment, is the rate of pay for Mr. Bradley's 
job consistent or fair or unfair in relation to 
the jobs listed in this exhibit? 

j A Well, I think it is fair, yes, sir.
i

Q Mr. Bradley made the statement in testimony
yesterday that he felt that he had lost money in 
relation to the rate of pay for the head rate 
clerk in the traffic department. Were you present 
and did you hear that testimony?

A I heard that testimony.
Q In your judgment, hew does Mr. Bradley's former 

job compare or not compare with a job at head
rate clerk?

A It does not compare.
Q Would you tell us, as far as you understand it



261
~!

1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24
25

briefly, the duties of the head rate clerk and 
what qualifications are required?

A Well, they must first be a qualified rate clerk, 
which is a qualification and skill which takes 
years to acquire. They must be able to make lates 
and to check rates and to answer questions from 
the public or from other railroads about rates, 
and the head rate clerk is in supervision of that 
department. I think the one that we were talkingI
about probably has five people in it, the head 
rate clerk and four others, probably. And then 
he is responsible for the work that is performed 
by each of the others who are just rate clerks, 
and if they have problems that they can't answer, 
they refer to him and he in turn solves them or

: takes them to a higher source for the solution.
i

Q What kind of documents and information does the
rate clerk or the head rate clerk use in his job?

A They have what we call tariffs, and they are
printed volumes of rates and conditions and added 
charges and everything else that go up to making 
how much the railroad charges a customer for 
handling the freight.

Q When you say this man might make rates, would you
i tell us briefly what that means?

■ <3 \.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

A

Q

i A

i

Well, if someone calls in and says, "I have a 
large volume or small volume of something of a 
particular commodity that I want to handle from 
here to there and I want your railroad to handle 
it for me, what kind is the best rate you can 
use?” Of course, the railroads are required by 
the Interstate Commerce Commission to maintain 
rates and publish tariffs so that everybody knows 
what the rates for that kind of movement would 
be. So they figure out the best that the man can 
do, plus a profit for the railroad company, of 
course, and they go through all of the tariffs 
to make sure that that is not forbidden or barred 
by any Interstate Commerce or anything else we 
have already published, and then they tell the 
customer that that will cost you so much per 
thousand, or maybe they are going to ship in 
carload lots.
State whether or not the job of the head rate 
clerk requires the exercise of some judgment and 
discretion.
It does, yes, sir.

THE COURT: I really think we are 
getting pretty far off base. Let’s 
wind this up, Mr. Burch, please.

3 3



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

Q One last question. Is the job of the head rate 
clerk filled by bid under seniority under the 
agreement or what are the facts?

A Well, we publish notice that the job is open,
and then the clerks who feel like they are qualifie 
for it make application and then they are selected. 
That is the only difference. They are on a 
selective basis after the job has been announced 
open.

Q Let me ask you to explain, are there certain jobs 
covered by the clerks' agreement that are filled 
on the basis you have just described?

A Yes, sir.
Q Rather than on a strict seniority basis?
A Yes, sir.
Q Generally speaking, are these jobs that involve 

some degree of supervision?
A They do, yes, sir.

MR. BURCH: I offer Defendant 
Company’s Exhibit 11 in evidence.

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.

Q Mr. Adams, at my request in preparation for this 
trial, did you prepare a list of employees from 
Group 2 and Group 3 positions who have been



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

promoted to Group 1 posit ions?
A I did.
Q Under the clerks* agreement. I will ask you if

you can identify what I have marked as Southern 
Exhibit 12 as that list?

A It is.
Q The first group, as I understand your exhibit, 

consists of employees who once held assignments 
as mail porters in the central mail room, is that
correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q That would include Mr. Deese and Mr. R. W. Moody 

who testified here yesterday?
A It does, yes, sir.
Q There is a heading there in present position, is

that intended to show the job that these men 
occupied when this document was made up?

A It does, yes, sir.
Q And this was prepared as of May 12, is that

correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, the other date or heading is ’’Date first 

assigned Group 1," is that the date in which 
those employees first performed service in 
Group 1?



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24
2*

A That is, yes.
Q That is not the date on which they entered their 

present position, necessarily, is it?
A No, sir.
Q The other employees listed, and as I understand

your exhibit, began their employment with the 
company in either Group 2 or Group 3?

A Yes, sir.
Q And subsequently have been promoted to and have 

assignments in Group 1?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you have also listed on Page 2, have you

not, sane Negro employees who were promoted to 
Group 1 but are no longer with the company?

A That's right, yes, sir.
MR. BURCH: I offer Defendant 

Company Exhibit 12 in evidence.
MS. McDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, I hand you Plaintiff's 
Exhibit 15 which is the printed contract booklet, 
and I want to ask you some questions about the 
seniority rights of promoted employees. I am 
going to ask you about the application of the 
contract and I will also then ask you to show me



266
1
2
3

4
5
6

7 A
8 j Q

9

10 A

11 | Q

13
14

15
16

1
17 A
18
19

20

the portions of the contract that apply, if you 
can. First of all, you have already testified 
that if an employee had been promoted from Group 2 
to Group 1 and there had been a reduction in 
Group 1, that employee would have retained 
seniority in Group 2. Is that your testimony?
Yes, sir.
I believe you referred us there to Rule 3 on 
Page 10, is that the applicable rule?
Yes, sir, it is.
And that provides in part that employees promoted 
from Group 1 to another as established in Rule 1 
will rank in such group fran the date of trans
fer thereto and will continue to retain seniority 
in the group from which promoted. Is that the 
way the contract was applied in this case?
Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Let me interrupt you. j 

That raises a question I have in my mind.

21 j
! BY THE COURT:

22 i
23

24

Let's assume that the Group 2 employee with a 
long period of seniority is promoted or bids for,

25 j i believe you call it, a job in Group 1.

3 >-£•' 4 ..



267
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

25

A Yes, sir.
Q And he gets it. Let’s assume that he works in 

this Group 1 job for a year, but he has only 
limited seniority in Group 1. So, when a reduction 
in force in Group 1 comes about and somebody has 
to get the ax, he loses his Group 1 job because

I!
he doesn’t have enough seniority. He then, however, 
can avail himself of his long seniority in Group 2 
where he started from, correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, let's suppose that during this interval when

I he is working in the Group 1 job, somebody else 
has taken the particular position in Group 2 that

!
he occupied. How would you determine what jobI ■in Group 2 that he could take, to avail himself

tof his seniority? Do you understand what I am 
asking?

A Yes. He takes any job in that case, any job that 
is held by a junior Group 2 employee, junior in 
seniority in Group 2. In other words, in
Mr. Bradley's case, having had —

i
Q Since 1925.
A A 1934 seniority in this particular group.
Q Practically any Group 2 job?
A That was still in existence.



268
1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10

11
12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22
2 3

24
25

Q The fact that somebody else might have taken the
job which he formerly held would not prevent the j 

man with the long seniority from taking it and 
moving the new occupant to something else?i . !I !i A No, sir, it would not.i 7! THE COURT: Now go ahead.

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, you have 
covered that point very adequately. I 
will just ask Mr. Adams for the record.

I
I

BY MR. BURCH:

; Q I will ask you whether Rule 24, together with
Rule 3, covers the questions that the Court just
asked you?

i|
A They do, yes, sir.|
Q Now, let me direct your attention to Rule 19 on

iI
Page 18. I will ask you if we may do it in the 
interest of brevity to tell me what has happened 
in actual practice under the contract when an 
employee has been promoted to a job but has been 
disqualified for inability to perform it. What 
is the rule there?

A  Well, Rule 19 provides in that case that he does 
not have a displacement right, but must bid for



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

a position that he wants or can hold, or can j
qualify for.

THE COURT: I don't believe I quite 
understand what you are telling me. 
Explain that to me again, please, sir.

THE WITNESS: If he bids for a job 
and he cannot within a reasonable length 
of time qualify to do the work, provided 
the supervisors have given him all the 
help they can, and they say you just 
can't do it and you are disqualified, 
then he is not allowed to go back and 
bump anybody else, but is required to 
bid for a job —  well, I can't volunteer.

THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: This is the thing 

that confused probably Mr. Bradley and
;

the other witnesses that we heard from 
here when they said they would lose theii 
seniority. I suspect strongly this is 
what they were told, when they were bid, 
to be sure that the job they bid for was 
one they thought they could work, be
cause if they didn't, they would have 
to wait and bid for a job to come back

J



1
I

2 I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

13
16

17

18
19

20
-y •

22

23

24
23

to, if they were disqualified.
THE COURT: If a man loses the 

newer, better job, not because of 
reduction in force as I asked you, but j 
because after a matter of a few months 
they find he cannot cut the mustard, 
he doesn't have the training and skill 
necessary, he doesn't have the right to 
go back and re-acquire the job from 
which he came?

THE WITNESS: He must wait and bid 
for a job.

THE COURT: Okay.
 ̂ (By Mr. Burch.) Now, Rule 19 provides in part, 

if I may again read, Your Honor: Disqualified 
employees may bid on any bulletined positions but 
may not displace any regularly assigned employee. | 
It is understood supervisors will cooperate with 
employees who are making an effort to qualify.

Now, in application, if an employee were 
disqualified, he would have the privilege of 
bidding on the next vacant job posted, is that 
correct?

A That is correct, yes.
Q Now, in actual practice, tell us what the facts

3 i oi a



1
r

271
1

2
3

4
5
6 |I
7
8 
9

i10 !
11
12
13 I
14 i

15 i
16 I

17
18 *

19
20 i

21

22 I
23 I

24
Q

are with reference to how often you disqualify 
people down at the railroad for this clerical job, 
usually or unusually?
Well, it is very unusual for that to happen,
Mr. Burch. If a person bids for more, bites off 
more than they can chew, we tell the supervisor 
to go to him and counsel with him, that he is 
over his depth and he is not making it, and his 
opinion is that he will not make it and suggest 
that he pick a job which has maybe a little less 
requirement or a little less knowledge or skill 
or other things to perform the work.

THE COURT: Are you trying to 
ameliorate the harshness of the rule?

THE WITNESS: Right. The rule is 
harsh and it must be. If a man takes 
the job and then doesn’t want it, he 
will say he can't work it and we will 
say he is disqualified and he would be 
bumped, and it costs us money to educate 
clerks, you see. We are trying to save 
a little money.

Mr. Adams, has it been necessary within your 
experience to take a disqualification case to an 
arbitration because you and the union couldn't

a



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25

agree on it?
A No, sir.

I
Q Now, let me go back to something I think you have 

covered, but I want to ask you briefly, in your 
conversations with Mr. Bradley concerning his 
position, his employment situation, did he ever 
say to you or suggest in any way that what he 
wanted was to be promoted?

A No, sir.
Q Now, does the railroad and union have other agree

ments, other than the ones in this blue book?
A Yes, sir.
Q That apply to the situation of an employee such j 

as Mr. Bradley who might be displaced or dis
qualified?

A Yes, sir, they do.
Q I will hand you a document marked as Southern

Pacific Exhibit 13, entitled ’’Memorandum on Agree
ment," and I will ask you if you will tell us the 
date of that agreement and the subject of the 
agreement?

A This is an agreement which was signed on the 17th 
day of July, 1963 and in agreement provided for 
the consolidation of seniority rosters of the 
various seniority districts into four, and then

J s >/



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1C
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

also provided for protection and benefits to the 
employees because of that concession.

Q Mr. Adams, the contract will speak for itself, I 
do not ask that you interpret it, but will you 
tell us what effect, if any, the contract had on 
employees such as Mr. Bradley who might be dis
placed or disqualified.

A An employee that had a regular position on the 
date this was signed, were guaranteed to have a 
job or be paid their salary in lieu thereof until 
they retired or died or discharged for cause.

Q Did that in effect constitute a guarantee against
lay-off pursuant to reduction in force?

A Yes, sir.
Q Would that apply, if Mr. Bradley had chosen to 

be in Group 1 and had been displaced due to 
reduction in force?

A It would, yes.
MR. BURCH: We offer Exhibit 13 in

evidence.
MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) I hand you what has been marked
for identification as Southern Pacific Exhibit 14, 
entitled "Addendum Agreement" and ask you to tell

3 nr



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
*>
23

24
25

us the date and what it is.
A This is an agreement made in San Francisco on the 

20th of April, 1966 between the clerks' organi
zation and the Southern Pacific Company, Pacific 
Lines and the Texas & Louisiana Lines and the 
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, and the 
SD & AE Railroad, San Diego and Eastern Railway 
Company.

Q Tell us briefly again, I'm not asking you for an 
interpretation, but tell us the nature of this 
agreement and how it would have affected an 
employee such as Mr. Bradley with reference to 
reduction in force, disqualification and any other 
such action?

A Well, this agreement added to the protection that 
had been made available to our clerks in the 
July 17, 1963 agreement, in that it provided that 
anyone who, on April 20, 1966, was in the service 
of the company and had been there for one year, 
they became protected in like manner. It also 
provided that the rate of pay that that employee 
had on that date would not be reduced because he 
was required to drop back to a lower paying job 
or something like that. We would continue to pay 
what we call his guaranteed rate. It has a great

jrtc



275
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15
lo
17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24

Q

i ai:
I Q

i

Q

A
Q

many more things, but for our purposes I think 
that is what we are talking about.
Is it correct or incorrect that under Exhibit 13 
and 14, Mr. Bradley was guaranteed a job with the 
Southern Pacific Company until he retired, and he 
was guaranteed not less than the rate that he was 
drawing in 1966 when the second agreement was 
signed?
That is true. Yes, sir.
And that would have been true regardless of whethe 
there was a reduction in force or whether or not 
he was disqualified from a higher position that 
he bid on?
That is so, yes.

r

MR. BURCH: We offer Exhibit 14 
in evidence.

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.

(By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Adams, does the company have 
certain disciplinary procedures that are followed 
with respect to employees covered by the clerks’
contract?
Yes, sir.
Are employees covered by the contract subject to 
suspension under seme circumstances?

3*71-



276
l A
2 Q
3

8 ! 
9

I
10 I

11
12
13

14

15
i t'

Q

A

17
18
19

20 Q
21
22
2 3  I A

24 Q
2 5

They are, yes, sir.
Tell us briefly what the circumstances are and 
the procedures that are followed in a man that is i 
suspended.
Well, a person who has done something that is 
considered of a sufficient serious nature that 
we think that he should not work longer, effective 
right at that time, maybe suspending pending a 
hearing, he may not be disciplined until he has 
a hearing in formal form as covered by the agree
ment rules. But you may suspend him if the 
circumstances would indicate that that was the 
thing that should be done.
Is any paperwork initiated when an employee is 
suspended?
Yes, sir. Whoever instituted or inaugurated this 
suspension would have to report it immediately 
to his particular supervisor and in a very short 
time it would come to my hands.
Do employees who are members of the union and 
covered by the contract, as far as you know, ever 
suspend other union employees?
No, sir.
Do you know of any employee in Mr. Bradley’s 
position or comparable position who has authority



Ii
9 !

1 0  I

11 j A
j

1 2  Q

i13

14
!

15 i A
16 !

20 Q

21 I!
22
23 ' A(j
24 Qj
25

277
to suspend other union employees?
No, sir, they do not.

THE COURT: Your fifteen minutes 
estimated yesterday have now run to an 
hour and a half. Is there any way we 
can shorten this?

Mr. Adams, there was testimony yesterday that at 
seme time in the past there had been two separate 
local unions of the clerks’ organization here in 
Houston. Did you hear that testimony?
I did, yes, sir.
With whom has the company historically made its 
contracts and handled labor relations concerning 
clerks?
With the System Board of Adjustment through its 
general chairman.
Did the company negotiate contracts with either of 
the local unions that have been referred to?
No, sir.
You have heard testimony that those locals were 
merged at some time. Were you aware that that 
took place?
I had heard it.
Did that merger in any way affect the seniority 
or other contract rights of Southern Pacific



278
l

3
4
5

9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16 
17

20
21 I!
22

employees?
A No, sir.
Q Did the existence of two locals in the past in 

any way affect the contract or seniority rights 
of any Southern Pacific employee?

A No, sir.
MR. BURCH: Pass the witness.
THE COURT: We will take a ten 

minute recess and then we will have the 
cross.

(Recess taken.)

THE COURT: Be seated, please. You
may go forward.

24
25

•S u-■ C ■<_



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCDONALD:

Q Mr. Adams, you testified that Southern Pacific
had joined the President's Plans for Progress in 
1962. Is that correct?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q What was the purpose of the President's Plans for

Progress?
A It was to try to promote the equal employment

opportunities to be given to everyone regardless 
of their race or creed.

Q So if you joined the Plans for Progress, was this 
an agreement that was made that the company would 
try to insure that there would be no discriminate 
against anyone regardless of race, is that correct} 

A We did, yes, sir.
Q When you joined the Plan for Progress, that was 

the company's intention?
A It certainly was, yes, ma'am.
Q You also testified yesterday that Southern Pacific 

had engaged in some affirmative action, attempting 
to seek out minority employees?

! A Yes, ma'am.II Q When did this begin?

c0 * -o-



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
18

17

18
19

20
21
22
2 3

24
25

A Well, shortly after this time here, but it has 
evolved into a real task at the present time.
But beginning about, oh, *63 or *64, we began to 
really put the emphasis on affirmative action 
rather than being sure that you did not dis
criminate against anybody. Our thought became 
to go and get them.

Q Where did you go?
A Well, like to Texas Southern University and, as 

I testified, I think I am not familiar with all 
of —  most of them go by letters, SER I think is 
a Latin American organization who will provide 
you with Latin applicants.

Q Were you responsible for conducting this affirmatiji 
action program?

A It was under my direction, yes, maTam.
Q Do you know what was done, did you make a check? j
A Well, the employment director makes reports, made 

reports at that time of what he had done. That 
responsibility now has been placed under the 
manager of personnel.

Q What period of time are we talking about when the 
person under your supervision made reports to you 
explaining what had been done as a part of the 
affirmative action plan?

■J / ■> r
s j



281
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18 
19

20
21

23

24

A Oh, Mrs. McDonald, my memory for dates is completelyI
bad. But it extended over several years. Is

ithat sufficient?
Q You say it began in '62, the Plans for Progress?
A Yes, ma * am.
Q And when did your affirmative action program begir?
A As I recall, within a year or two after that,l i

why the whole concept of employment relations 
began to evolve on a much more solid basis than

t ,it had, and affirmative action was the decision 
of the top management. As a matter of fact, it

j
came to us from the president of the company 
through the vice-president to whom we would

j
report, and the instructions were that we must
educate everyone on an affirmative action rather

j

than just a negative approach by not doing any- I
thing wrong. We must start doing everything right. 

Q So you visited Texas Southern University?
A I*m sorry, I can't name all of those.
Q Do you know how many times Texas Southern Uni-

i versity was visited?
A Mr. Gibson or someone from the employment office 

has visited many, many times. Dr. Dorian, with 
whom you may be acquainted, who was dean of ladies 
out there, dean of women, was very helpful to us

3*> *3 4̂



282
1
2
3 1:
4
5
6
7
8 
9

10 ,

11 (
12

I13

14

15 i
\ie

17 j

is :
19

Q

A
Q

A
Q
A
Q

A
Q

20 j A
21
22
23

24

in trying to provide us with some people. As a 
matter of fact, she sent her own secretary as the

i

first Negro secretary that we were able or did
employ.
How many persons did yon employ as a result of 
the visits to Texas Southern University?
That I can’t say.
You say someone in your organization also visited 
SER and attempted to secure Mexican American 
applicants?
Yes, ma’am.
Do you know how many times they were visited?
I can’t say.
Do you know how many applicants were secured as 
a result of the visit to SER?
No, I do not.
Did the visits to Texas Southern University or 
SER come as a result of the company’s initiative 
or did you not visit TSU because they called you? 
No, it was our initiative. They have a program 
out there in which we participate where school 
officials and counselors and all of those people 
come for a summer program, and we participate in 
that, and they come to our property and we try 
to explain to them and show them what we are

3 C V 4_



1
283
1

2
3

i
i

4 Q
5 i

i
6 I A

10 A
11 | Q
12 j Aii13 |

14 i
i

15 I

16 ! 

. 7  j

18 !:
19

i
2 0  ;

21 i
22
23

24

Q
A
Q
A

Q

Q

25

talking about so that they can interest students 
as they graduate them, or as they have to quit, 
that they may cane to us as applicants. ,
Have any other organizations been visited in an 
attempt to secure minority applicants?
Yes, I think, to be exact, that every high school 
has been visited.
Any high schools that are composed predominantly 
of minority students?
Yes, ma'am.
Can you give us the names?
Yates and Wheatley were at one time completely 
minority groups.
When were these high schools visited?
I can’t give you a date.
Do you know how many times they were visited?
They are visited almost every year, if not every j

jyear.
Is that Southern Pacific's program of visiting 
all of the high schools in Houston?
Yes, ma'am, and all of Texas and Louisiana also. 
Now, you heard Mr. Bradley describe the duties 
that he performed as head of the mail porters, 
head of the mail room. Was he correct, in your 
opinion?



284
1
2
3
4
5 !

I

Q

Q

6
7
8 
9

1C

11
12

13 !
14 I

15 A
16

17
18
19

20 
21 
22
23

24
25

A Outside of the assumption that he had supervisory 
duties, which I do not think that he had, it 
probably was a very accurate description.

Q Did he teach new mail porters how to perform 
their duties?

A I have no doubt that is true. That is the custom 
in the industry.
And did he also correct any errors that other 
mail porters might have made?
That I can't say, but I would assume that is a 
true statement.
Would you assume that he was responsible for 
answering any questions that other mail porters 
might have had concerning their duties?
I am reasonably sure of that, yes, ma'am.

Q Do you doubt that he interviewed Mr. Deese for 
employment?

A Since that is so far before my time, I can’t say 
that. I don't doubt Mr. Bradley’s word. I doubt 
his construction of what he is talking about.

Q Now, what about Mr. Bradley’s testimony that he 
authorized employees to take time off. Do you 
have any information that would lead you to believje 
that this was not correct?

A Well, not of my own knowledge. Let me say it



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2:>

that way. I am not that closely associated with 
it. I

Q Mr. Moore is the present head of the Duplicating I
i

Bureau, is that correct?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And there are three subdivisions under the Dupli

cating Bureau?
A That’s right.
Q What are the names of these subdivisions?
A Central mailing room and then the Duplicating

Bureau and then, I’m not sure what they call it, 
in my mind it is the typewriter repair bureau 
because that is what we call on them mostly for.

Q In the typewriter repair bureau, is there not a 
head of that particular bureau?

A No, ma’am.
Q There is no person who is in charge?j
A No, ma 'am.I

| Q In the Duplicating Bureau, is there a person who 
is in charge of that?

A Mr. Tate, whose position is an excepted position 
and not under union contract. He and his wife 
are the only employees. He is in charge of the 
work, let’s say it that way, yes.

Q So he is in charge of the Duplicating Bureau, but

3(1 7*4..



1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
2 }.
24

23

28

he answers finally to Mr. Moore as the overall 
head?

A That’s true, yes.
Q Now, yesterday the Defendant Southern Pacific

Exhibit 1 was introduced which was the ageement 
between the director general of railroads and 
Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks effective 
January 1st, 1920. Now, in that agreement there 
is a definition of a clerk on Page 5. Is that 
essentially the same definition of a clerk as is 
contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15, which is the 
agreement effective in '56?

A May I see the exhibit? Essentially it is, yes.
Q In both of these agreements there is a specific 

provision that excepts persons who sort mail, is 
that correct?

A That is correct.
Q So even if Mr. Bradley, as a mail porter, and as

head of the mail room was sorting mail and engaging 
in other activities that would be included in the 
definition of what constitutes a clerk for more 
than four hours a day, then he could not be called 
a clerk, is that not so?

A I am not getting your question exactly, excuse me.
Q What I am trying to get at is: Does this agreemenjt

JiV*-



287
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

automatically except Mr. Bradley as a mail porter
I from coverage as a clerk regardless of what his 

duties are?
A No, the duties of a job determine the classificati 

! Now, if he were doing more than four hours a day
clerical work, then he would probably be classi
fied as a clerk.

pn.

Q Well, you have heard Mr. Bradley's description of 
his duties. Don't you believe that his duties at

I
least more than four hours were clerical?

A I do not, Mrs. McDonald.i
Q You don't consider addressing envelopes clerical? 
A I do not.II

i Q And you do not consider weighing of mail clerical?
i
A I do not.
Q Or preparing certified mail?

! A I do not.
Q Now, you also testified yesterday that you worked

iust about all the clerical positions with Southerh
Pac if ic?

A I have worked in almost every one of the variousl
departments of the railroad, yes, ma’am.

Q And you have been employed since 1925, is that
correct?

A Yes, ma'am.



288
1
2
3

4
3
6

8 A
9 Q
10 A
11 Q
12

13 I
1 4 !
15 j
16 A
17 j Q

When you were working these clerk positions from 
the period of 1925 until you finally became —  I 
think it was assistant manager of —
In 1960 I became an examiner, which is an employee 
in that office.
Did you ever see a single black person between 
'25 and *60 ever employed in a clerical job?
Mrs. McDonald, I do not know.
Can you recall ever seeing any?
I can’t recall, let me say it that way.

i

So that in 1920, when Defendant’s Exhibit 1, |
which was this agreement defining what constitute^ 
a clerk and exempting people who dealt with mail, 
was prepared and all of the persons who were 
clerks were white, is that not so?
I wouldn't know.
But you have never seen a black clerk from ’25

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

to ’60?
A To my personal knowledge, no, ma’am, 

j Q Now, you worked as a crew caller in Group 2, is 
that correct?

A That’s right.
Q Crew caller is a rather highly paid job classi

fication, isn't it?
A No, ma’am, not at all.



289

1 I Q
2 A

5 !II
6 Q

7 ! A
8 | Q
9 

10

11 !
12 A
, » i ,
14 !I
15 | A
16 j Q
17
18
19

20
21
22 i

24
25

Not today?
Well, I don’t know what the rate is today. I 
doubt that the job still exists in that present 
form. I got $3 a day when I went to work and 
that was reduced in the depression to $2.70 a day. 
That was in —
In the ’30’s, you know.
Effective July 1st, 1971, it is my understanding 
from your testimony yesterday that all of the 
groups, Groups 1, 2, 3, have been merged into the 
one seniority unit?

iThat’s correct.
And everyone has carried their full seniority j 
date, is that right?
That is true.
You also testified yesterday that you did have a 
conversation with Mr. Bradley and the name of 
Mr. Shepherd came up, who is a Negro, and during 
this conversation I believe you testified that 
Bradley told you that he thought his job was not 
properly classified, and you told him that the 
job was always classified that way and Mr. Bradley 
also complained about his seniority. You said 
that the seniority was established the same as 
for others, and that there was no reason for a

J  7/*_



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
Is
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

change. Is that correct?
A That is correct, yes, ma'am.
Q So then Mr. Bradley was complaining of the senior! 

situation, was he not?
A As I recollect, yes, ma'am.
Q Now, the changes that were made effective July 1st 

1965 were really what Mr. Bradley was asking for, 
as far as the seniority arrangement when he talkec 
with you in 1960, is that correct?

A Mrs. McDonald, I am not quite positive exactly
what he wanted at that time. He wanted more monej 
so far as I could gather.

Q Didn't he also want his seniority back to 1934?
A I would not deny that statement. I cannot confim 

it, either.
Q Now, during that conversation, you told Mr. Bradle 

that there was no reason for changing the seniorit 
situation, but yesterday you testified that since 
there is going to be —  who are the new people?

A Telegraphers.
Q Since the telegraphers are coining in there is no 

reason for merging the groups?
A That is true.
Q Can you tell me why there was no reason in 1960 

and there is now a reason?

3 7  0



291
1 A
2 i

4
5 !

6 i

7
|

8 
9

10

11 !
12 j

13 |
14

15 !i
16 j

;
17 !
18 ii
19 i

Q

20

23 j Q

24 : AI
25

Because, Mrs. McDonald, the agreement as they so 
existed gave the rights to everyone regardless of 
their group, and there was simply no reason for 
changing the agreements at that time to provide 
in any other manner. Now, we made a change in 
f65 to which you related, and that topped and 
bottomed, you might say, the seniority groups and 
gave everybody in 3 a place on 1 and 2, and every
body in 2 a place on 1 and 3, if they didn't have 
one, and that was done later. But at the same 
time, the rules always provided and still provide 
for progression until July 1st and now because 
there is a common group, then progression is not 
in there any more, in that idea. But a person 
could still bid who might be on the roster as a 
porter or a mail porter or whatever, he could 
still bid for a clerk's job just as he could then. 
You expected this new system that was initiated 
in July of this year will work efficiently, don't 
you?
Mrs. McDonald, there are a great many objections 
to it, but it is the best that can be done.
You, in your position, are satisfied with it?
I'm not satisfied with it at all, but it is the 
best we could do.



292f  ■'* * i„ »>, H - -it .s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21

23

24

I Q Do you think it will decrease the efficiency of 
the operations?:

A I am afraid it will, yes, ma’am, 
j Q On what do you base that?i ;> A Well, you have to know that it is pretty hard for 

me to say to another person that we just do not 
think that you are qualified to do this particular 
job. We are a little bit apprehensive that we are 
going to have to do a great deal more of that thaniI
we did.

Q Is that your only concern?
A That is my only concern. I have no concern other- 

wise with it.
Q Now, yesterday, you testified that generally the 

job goes to the senior man, is that correct?
A Fitness and ability being equal.
Q And only on few occasions are persons disqualified,

is that right?i
A That’s right.
Q Under the present contract, and I am referring

to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15, which would governI
until all of the groups were merged July 1st ofI
this year, there were three groups. Is that
correct?

A That is correct.

J  TV



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21
22
23

24
25

Q And the third group is labor?
A Manual labor.
Q In the contract it says labor employed in and 

around stations, tower houses and warehouses?
A That's true.
Q Now, the Defendant Company's Exhibit 5, which was 

introduced yesterday, shows that as of March 31, 
1971, this year, there are no whites employed in 
Group 3, which is the labor force.

A That is true.
Q But you say that since 1962 the company has been

endeavoring to make sure there is no discriminatioi 
and that persons are placed where they are qualifii

A That is true.
Q Now, Group 3 laborers, essentially the lowest

paying group of all three, is that correct?
A I am not quite positive about that. Some of the 

dock workers receive pretty substantial rates.
Q Well, the wage rates would explain in detail, 

would they not?
A Yes.
Q But as a general matter, would you explain that

the majority of the labor positions are the lowest 
paid of Groups 1, 2 and 3?

A Well, probably that's so.



»»Vf. a* V-%; • *■’ t» • •  v w, *•.

294
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8 
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20 

21 

22
23

24
25

Q You have worked in the personnel department, have 
you not, as an examiner?

A That’s right. Yes, ma'am.
Q And you got to knew the employees of Southern 

Pacific as they came in to get a job?
A No, that was just under the general supervision.

We have a bureau set up for that which is the 
employment bureau. They come to the employment 
bureau. At that time, well, in 1963 when I was 
given the title of assistant manager, then that 
came under my direct supervision.

Q Well, now, when the company joined the President’s 
Plans for Progress, did you or any other officials 
in the company communicate the change in policy 
to the employees?
It was, yes, ma’am.
Was this through direct contact, verbal contact? 
That is and then it was published in the house 
organ, or whatever you call it, the bulletin, and 
made available to everyone.

Q How long did you work in the clerk category?
A Pardon?
Q How long did you work in the clerical category?
A Well, I am on my forty-eighth year now.
Q And have you observed the work performed by the

A
Q
A



r X.r Y '-> 295
la bore rs in Group 3?

A Yes, ma’am.
• /} !*Q In your opinion would a clerk want to transfer to 

the labor job?
A Well, I would not, no. But I can only speak for 

myself. Someone else might want that.
Q Laborers do what?
A They do the physical labor.
Q Clean, mop?
A Well, in small facilities they do. But a clerk 

does that too, if there is no labor employed.
But in large facilities we have positions which 
are titled ’’janitor" and ordinarily a janitor 
is required to do the major portion of his time 
in that kind of work.

Q Would you agree that Group 1 generally contains
, 1  '

the highest paid jobs as compared with Group 2
and 3? I

A Generally, yes, ma'am.
Q Now, I am going to refer to the Defendant Company'^ 

Exhibit 2, which was introduced yesterday, which 
was the memorandum of agreement between Southern
Pacific and the Brotherhood. It is datedl

24 1 D e c e m b e r  29, 1965. You participated in the negoti-I
25 at ion of this memorandum?

1
2
3

4
5
6

7
8 

9

10 

11 

12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20 

21

22 j
|
i

23

3  77*.



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

II
12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22

23

24
2 5

; - , v  Z V* 'v ' *‘ M  ’ ■ : '

A Yes, ma’am.
Q Now, what is the status of this memorandum, what 

weight does it carry?
A Up until —  well, on July 1st, 1971 we changed

it all by the second agreement. But up until that 
time it was —  it bound the company and the 
organization as to what would be done and every
one who was employed prior to that time and subse
quent to that time were treated as that agreement 
so provides.

Q So is this something like a supplement?
A That is a supplement to the contract.
Q And binding on the employees?
A Binding on everyone, yes, ma’am.
Q Who else participated for the union?
A Mr. P. J. Gibson, I think, and he had some of his 

assistants with him.
Q Did Mr. Gates participate in the meeting?
A I believe that he did. He was probably as an

assistant.
Q Mr. L. M. Greater participate in the negotiation?
A I think that he did.
Q Now, Mr. L. M. Greater, what position does 

Mr. L. M. Greater have?
A Well, this I have to tell you just by my understan

3  7jr



1
2

3

4

5

6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17
18
19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

if*• '
2$

I understand that he is the local chairman of a 
local organization in 589. Maybe that is not 
the right number. But in this capacity he was 
introduced to me as a member of the negotiating 
committee from the general committee.

Q But you dealt with Mr. Greater during his negoti
ations as a representative?

A No, ma’am, I dealt with Mr. Gibson.
Q Were there meetings where this contract was 

negot iated?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And you never spoke with Mr. Greater?
A Mr. Greater was present at the time it was signed, 

yes, ma’am. But as to whether he was there at 
the other meetings, I am not positive.

Q What was the purpose of this memorandum agreement 
signed on December 29, 1965?

A Well, the change in conditions on the railroad 
had created an unfair, we thought, block to 
people in Group 2 and 3 from becoming clerks, and 
let me explain to you how that was. The vast 
majority of jobs that we were filling were key
punch operators and stenographers, and we made a 
study to show that probably nine out of ten or 
more of the people we employed fell into those

3 7 9  <



1
2
3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

V’ <y /' ‘V.

Q

categories. Those keypunch operators didn't pay 
as much as a clerk, and ordinarily the steno
graphers that we hired were the lowest paid 
stenographers which would almost follow, so those 
people were moving as jobs became available.
They were moving out. Now, as long as that 
happened, then a person from Group 2 had no 
opportunity to move up, although we thought and 
knew that we had qualified people there to fill 
these clerical jobs which did not have specific 
skills such as the ability to use a keypunch 
machine or shorthand, and this, that and the 
other. So that was the cause for the top and 
bottom, in other words we put a block between any 
new hires and the people that already had seniorit 
in Group 2, whether they had wanted to move up 
to Group 1 or not. We gave them an arbitrary 
date on Group 1 which in effect gave them rights 
over anybody we employed thereafter in Group 1. 
Now, could an employee in Group 2 transfer to a 
job above keypunch operator?
Yes, ma'am. But the presence of the keypunch 
operator was blocking him, because the keypunch 
operator moved up first, see, and for instance 
Mr. Bradley, if he wanted one of those, this new

Jk'C JL.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

' '*.>■. ■ kr'-jk ■ ' • . " 2
employee would have blocked him. So we did that 
so that there could be no blocking of Mr. Bradley 
except his own choice.

Q The contract provided that vacancies would be 
filled in Group 1 first by move-ups within 
Group 1, and then transfers in Group 2.

A Well, we put them all on the board and we acceptec 
any applicants. We put a bulletin notice on the 
board and anybody who applied for it we considerec 
If we had no application from a Group 1 employee, 
and a Group 2 employee had made application for 
it, he was considered right in turn.

Q New, isn't it true that a complaint was filed 
against Southern Pacific in 1965?

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, objection. 
That is completely irrelevant. Any 
other legal proceeding, it is not in
volved in this case.

MS. MCDONALD: Your Honor, may I 
answer that? In response to interrogate 
which I served, I asked this question 
about negotiation of the '66 agreement, 
and the response to that, the answer 
was that certain changes were made 
because a complaint was filed, and I

SK! * -



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2 4

25

can refer to the response.
THE COURT: You may go ahead, I 

will overrule it.
Q Would you answer that question, please?
A Well, we were in negotiations withe the conciliate

department of the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportune 
Commission, and Mr. Kenneth Hulbert.

Q Had a complaint been filed against Southern Pacifi 
challenging the seniority system?

A Mrs. McDonald, unless I am not testifying properlj 
from memory, the complaint did not specifically 
provide that. But in the investigations, as they 
very often do, the end-up of the thing is not 
nearly what the complaint was when it started.

Q Who was the complaint filed by?
MR. BURCH: Excuse me. Let the 

witness complete his answer.
THE COURT: That is all right. 

Thank you.
Q Who was the complaint filed by?
A This is from memory, a Mr. Moses Leroy and a 

Mr. Clyde Thornton.
Q Now, Mr. Moses Leroy, was he the president of 

Local 1534?
A That I do not know.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22
2 3

2 4

2 5

Q And Mr. Moses Leroy is Negro, is he not?
A Yes, and so is Mr. Thornton.
Q So, as a result of this charge being filed, was

this Defendant Company's Exhibit 2 negotiated?
A Not as a result of that complaint being filed,

no, ma'am. But out of the information that grew 
out of a thorough investigation of all of the 
circumstances, assisted by the conciliating brand 
of the EEOC, we developed that there was probably 
a circumstance that was happening so far as the 
entering level of jobs was concerned, that might 
have been disadventageous to the people we had
in Groups 2 and 3. I proposed that we could1 1
block it in this manner, and the organization 
agreed with that subsequently, and we executed 
the agreement which successfully did it.

Q Now, the date that was given as the seniority
date for Group 2 and Group 3 employees who wished 
to transfer to Group 1 was January 1st, 1966, is 
that correct?

A That is correct.
Q N o w ,  w h y  is it that certain jobs are put in

Group 1, certain jobs from Group 2 and certain 
jobs in Group 3?

A Because of classifications that were set up

J X J ck.



beginning in 1920 and continued on down to the 
present time as to what constitutes a clerk’s i
position, what constitutes the other positions 
in Group 2 and what would be just a laborer’s 
job which would fall in Group 3, although they 
are not all called laborers. I
Is it because that the duties are somewhat analogc^us 
within the group?
They cover about the same type of work and 
responsibility.
Within each group?
Within each group. That is a pretty broad state
ment .
Now, I am going to refer to Defendant's Southern 
Pacific Exhibit 3, which was introduced yesterday 
as the seniority roster as of January 1st, 1971 
showing the race, either Negro or Latin American 
or employees holding assignment in Group 1. Does 
that mean that these are employees who are actually 
working in Group 1 jobs?
Who on this date were.
Actually working in Group 1 jobs?
That’s right, yes, ma'am. You see, where there 
is a title and department, that is the title of 
the job this person holds. Here is one which is



tJL
">

3
4

3

6
?
S

9

10
i i

1 2

13

14

1 5

16

17
i ̂
1 o
20
21

22
23
24

25

___________________ 303
excepted and they are on another kind of job.
Some may show leave of absence or absent military 
service or anything like that.

Q Now, suppose under occupation there is no job 
listed but instead, Group 3 or Group 2?

A That means he has an assignment as laborer or Il
something else that falls in Group 2 or 3.

Q Then he is not working in Group 1 job? i
A That is true.
Q So then this exhibit does not show all of the 

persons who are actually working Group 1 jobs.
A Yes, it does. i
Q And does it include those who are not working

;
Group 1 jobs?

jA Yes. This includes in one fashion or another i
ieveryone in this particular district who has 

seniority as a clerk, you see. And this indicates; 
in what capacity they were working as of the date 
this was made. Sane of them who were clerks are ii
listed here. And those who -- we have a seniority 
district Group 2 which I did not know would be 
pertinent, or we would have produced it. If it 
is in there, we could refer to that, but that 
would show the ones in the same fashion by the 
information as shown here, who were employed on



304
1

2  i Q
3 '
4 ;
5
6

7 A
8

9

1 0

li
1 2 Q
13

14

15
16
1 A
18 Q
19

20

21

2 ? A
•> Q
24 A

this date in Group 2.
On January 1st, 1966 after these negotiations
with Mr. Hulbert, each of the employees in Group 1,

i
2, 3 were given a seniority date in Group 1 and 
in Group 2 and 3, so everyone had a January 1st, 
1966 date?
Who did not have another date. Now, for instance,;
Mr. H. L. Shepherd, to whom we referred to, it is j

i
not pertinent, but it does occur, has a date priorj 
to f66 because he had acquired it prior to '66.
So, we didn’t take it away from him.
What I just wanted to understand was that if there! 
is no job listed on Defendant Company’s Exhibit 3,| 
but instead there is the word "Group 3" or 
"Group 2" that means that that employee is not 
working a Group 1 job?

iThat is true. I
Now, again referring to Defendant Company’s 
Exhibit 3, this would show all of the persons, 
white, black and Latin American, who are working 
Group 1 jobs. Is that correct?
That's correct. i
And the date that they began to work Group 1 job? 
No, that is not necessarily so. This is the date

i

of their seniority in this group, and this would



305
be the date that they first worked a Group 1 job. 
Now, they could have been up and down and up and 
down from Group 2 to Group 1 or Group 3 to Group 1 
a number of times, and this does not show that.
But this is when they established their seniority. 
So the date would be the first time that they 
went and worked a Group 1 job?
Yes.
Now, from looking over this exhibit, Defendant 
Company Exhibit 3, I find two Negroes and only 
two Negroes who have a seniority date prior to 
January 1st, 1966. Would you look it over and see1 
if you can find more than two?

II do not see, other than Mr. Williams and 
Mr. Shepherd.
Right. Now, then, just these two, of the Negroes 
employed today or as of January 1st, '71, worked 
a Group 1 job before 1-1-66?
There is one other. You have a person here by 
the name of Stivers, I believe, who is now a 
clerk over in purchases and materials and his 
date is 1-1-66, but he had a date as clerk and 
relinquished it. I don't know, he did it on his 
own accord, let me say it that way. Then there 
were others because I cannot give you specifics.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Q
A

■:th t

3a
Can you give me their oases?
No, I'm sorry, I can’t.

Q Now, this exhibit, Defendant Company's Exhibit 3, 
does this accurately reflect all of the employees 
working in Group 1?

A It is supposed to, yes.
Q Mr. Adams, I want to shoe yon Defendant Company's 

Exhibit 4 which was introduced yesterday, and thisj 
is Group 2 employees?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q Now, I have examined this, and according to my 

examination I find all but four of the Negroes 
working as either nail porters, Janitors or 
janitress. Will yon examine it?

A I would have to count them. I will have to put 
marks to Indicate, because I wouldn't remember 
fran one to the other. That Is one, and that is 
two, and that is three in your category.

MR. BQ8CB: I want to object. The 
document speaks for itself and if those 
are the statistics she gets from it, 
that is on there. She is asking the 
witness to confirm her arithmetic.

THE COUET: I think we may take 
your word for it.

J t r c u

* i '-r ' j-



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

• vs

MS. MCDONALD: My point is that 
Group 2 any be integrated and l will 
get to another exhibit of the caapany's 
in a moment. But of those Negroes in 
Group 2, they are all working as janitoi 
janitress or sail porters. That is all,

Q New, Mr. Adams, I want you to explain, if you
will, Defendant Southern fecific Exhibit 5 to me 
that was introduced yesterday.

A This is a count of the total number of employees 
in District No. 1 as of March 31, 1271, which tota 
four hundred fifty. In Group 1, fifty-two, and 
thirty-nine in Group 3 for a grand total of five 
hundred forty-one, and then the division of those 
figures by white and Negro and Latin American.
And then the percentages that that produces.

Q Does this show the numbers of persons actually 
working on Group 1 jobs?

A That is what it is, yes.
Q New, then, there is another section hired in to 

December 1, 1970 and some more numbers. Does 
that mean how many of the total that appears in 
the first paragraph were hired in 1970?

A That’s true. Yes, ma'am.
Q So then for example, this says twenty-four Negroeaj



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20
21
22
2 3

2 4

2 5

hired in 1970. That means of the total Negroes 
in Group 1 as of March 31 —

A No, no, no. This is not Group 1, this is total 
hired. Of the one hundred thirty-one employees 
hired. Now, this figure doesn’t fit in there 
except that it is included in the total, included 
in the total of one hundred thirty-ooe Negroes 
who are working in District 1, included in that 
total are twenty-four Negroes who were employed 
during 1970 and then there is another nine who 
were employed during 1971.

Q But then it does not show whether they went to 
Group 1, 2 or 3?

A Not this statement. It does not, no, ma'am.i -i ' •
Q If Mr. Bradley had transferred from the mail

porter’s job to a job in Group 1 before he retired 
his seniority date would have been what, after 
January 1st, 1966?

A January 1st, 1966, which he got by the special
agreement.

Q Then when he went into Group 1, bis promotions 
would be based on what seniority date?

A January 1, 1966.
Q Now, this would be even though he had been workinf 

as a mail porter since August of 1934?

■[ *: jp'Tvi i



* . .

1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20
21
22
23

24

25

A That’s true. e* - *?
Q Would that mean thereafter, referring to Defendan : 

Company’s Exhibit 3, a Mr. H. Blair, Jr., there 
is no initial indication by his name, so I 
assume he is white?

A Yes.
Q With a seniority date of May 4, 1967, if

Mr. Bradley when he originally signed his request
to transfer, do you recall that being introduced
in 1967?

A The one that he withdrew, yes, ma'am, I recall.
Q This request for transfer is dated June 2, 1967?
A Yes, ma’am.
Q And he wanted to transfer according to Defendant 

Company’s Exhibit 6 to timekeeper's Job, is that 
correct?

A Yes.
Q New, when he transferred over his seniority date

would be 1-1-66?
A That is true.
Q So that rather than Mr. Blair, Mr. E. L. Lanson, 

who is a typist mail clerk, and I gather he is
white, am I correct?

A Yes, I am sure.
Q With a seniority date of May 14, '65, he would

3 9 / cl.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

be able to bump Mr. Bradley from what?
A From his position if he went to timekeeper.
Q Did Mr. Bradley explain to you that is just why 

he didn't want to transfer?
A I have no recollection of my asking Mr. Bradley 

why he didn't want to transfer.
Q Now, this morning, reference was made to some 

of the classification index of steam railroad 
occupations, and I believe you testified that 
the classification that Mr. Bradley was given 
was pursuant to these statements, whenever they 
are issued, by the United States Railway Labor 
Board. Is that correct?

A The classification Mr. Bradley was given is that 
specified in the agreement. Now, the agreements 
in general follow the classifications that the 
ICC set up for the division of the various
employees.

Q Isn't it true that the agreement, Plaintiff's 
Exhibit 15, between Southern Pacific and the 
Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, et cetera, 
provided that one position could be moved from 
one district to another, did it not?

A That agreement?
Q Yes.



1
2
*
4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

A Well, we always thought so, but we had two or 
three adverse decisions in similar cases from 
the Railway Labor Board, which made us doubt 
that we could successfully do it and contest a 
claim from someone because it was done.

Q Now, are you saying, and I’m referring to 
Rule 7 of this agreement, Rule 7 would not 
permit the company and union by agreement to 
move the mail porters’ jobs to Group 1?

A I can’t say. I don’t recall Rule 7, but I don’t 
see where that would have anything to do with 
that.

Q Just read it to yourself and explain it to me?
A Well, Rule 7 concerns when a position was trans

ferred from one seniority district to another. 
That means, for instance, a position that we 
had in —  well, because of the changes in the 
number of seniority districts, when this was 
written, let me say it that way, when this was 
written and we had this large number, eighty some 
odd separate seniority districts, then this says 
when a position was transferred from one of those 
districts to another, you see, not the groups but 
districting, then this Rule 7 would come into 
operation. This has no concern with transferring



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

V* >.* £

a job from one group to another. The groups are 
specified by the agreement and we just could not 
have done that.

Q Had you tried, had the company and union tried 
to move one, a position from Group 1 to another 
in the past and had this matter gone to 
arbitration?

A No.
Q You never tried it?
A No.
Q Now, in the office in Houston, are there any

forms kept on retirement of employees, Southern 
Pacific employees?

A Ms. McDonald, I don't know for sure exactly what 
the question means, nor do I know that I have 
knowledge of that.

Q The record of retired employee was introduced 
yesterday by the plaintiff. Is that a record 
that is kept in the Houston office?

A No. Those records are kept in San Francisco now 
in the office of the secretary of the Board of 
Pens ions.

Q Now, did I understand your testimony to be that 
the Railroad Retirement Board of Pensions, which 
is not connected with Southern Pacific, is that



1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 i
lo
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

correct?
A That is true.
Q Sent out two copies of the retirement form to 

Mr. Pretty?
A As I understand, Ms. McDonald, from talking to 

the head of that bureau, that federal bureau, 
there are three forms prepared either by the 
applicant for annuity or people in his office 
for the applicant, and these three forms are 
then transmitted. And if I did not misunderstand 
him, two of them are sent direct to Mr. Pretty 
and the other form is sent to Mr. Breed, who is 
the assistant auditor in Houston. And Mr. Breed 
inserts some pertinent payroll information to 
bring Mr. Bradley's earnings records, for instance 
up to date. He testified, I think, he retired 
in July, effective in July, but at any rate the 
retirement board has no record readily available 
of his earnings between January and July. So 
that form comes to the auditor and he puts down 
the information how much he earned January 
through July, and then that goes to Mr. Pretty 
who completes the other information that is 
necessary to complete the forms, whatever that 
may be. Then they go to Chicago to the Railroad

J9f<k



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

3
Retirement Board. That is my understanding.

Q Well, both the auditor here in Houston and
Mr. Pretty are employees of Southern Pacific, 
is that not correct?

A That is correct.
Q Now, Mr.‘Bradley does not complete the form sent

to the auditor or the two forms sent to Mr. Pretti? 
does he?

A I do not know. We were told that the form itself 
is either completed by the employee or by some 
clerk or somebody in the office of the Railroad 
Retirement Board here in this building for him. 
Now, probably there are some reasons why they 
help more than they used to, because it is key
punch operation, and if everything is not in 
the proper place, you know it is out of the 
window.

Q I am confused.
A I am, too.
Q It seems to me that two copies are sent by the 

Railroad Retirement Board to Mr. Pretty and one 
to the auditor, both employees, and they fill 
out these forms and send them back to the 
Railroad Retirement Board and then the Railroad 
Retirement Board of Pensions, based on this



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

information sends the record of retired employee 
to the employee. Is that correct?

A I do not know.
Q Isn't that what —
A No, I did not testify to that. I testified that 

we were told by Mr. Mann of the Railroad 
Retirement Board that three forms were made out 
either by the applicant or by someone in his 
office for the applicant, and then one of them 
comes to Mr. Breed, who includes on it some 
payroll information that is available in his 
office and not in the retirement board, and then 
Mr. Breed in turn sends that to Mr. Pretty. In 
the meantime, the other two forms have been sent 
to Mr. Pretty and Mr. Pretty does whatever the 
completion is necessary, I would assume, certi
fying that the information was correct. And then 
those forms go to the Railroad Retirement Board 
in Chicago, and based on the information, they 
grant a pension or annuity, I believe, is the 
proper term.

Q Now, referring to Charles White, Mr. Burch
asked you some questions about Charles White.
Do you recall yesterday that Mr. Bradley testifie< 
this was a white employee who came into the mail



1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

;j
room and worked with him, and he never saw his 
card. Is that correct?

A I beg your pardon, he never saw what?
Q His card, his punch card, timecard?
A Oh, he never saw his timecard. I heard that, 

yes.
Q You also testified, did you not, that EEOC,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, prohibits 
Southern Pacific from keeping the race of the 
employee, but you had a computer?

A We had to program it into the computer and from 
that we get statistical information without 
going to an individual.

Q Now, I am going to show you this file concerning 
Charles White that Mr. Burch showed you earlier, 
and ask you to tell me whether or not included 
in this file is a form at the top entitled —  
wait a minute, sorry. A form containing informa
tion of the employee Charles Coleman White and 
whether or not there is a section in this form 
for race for minority group and whether or not 
it is not checked Negro?

A That's true. The reason for that is, this is 
the form which goes to the auditor of the 
timekeeping department and this information is



1
2
1
4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5

16
17

18
19

20
21

all placed into the computer, and this is the 
only opportunity for us to know that Charles 
White was a Negro, according to this.

THE COURT: Well, he wasn't.
MS. MCDONALD: We are talking about 

a different Charles White.
THE WITNESS: We don’t know that. 

This is the only record we have of a 
Charles White.

MR. BURCH: And he is the only one 
we have a record of and he was employed 
as a mail room porter.

THE COURT: I would hope that we 
could finish with this matter before 
the noon recess. Can you make it in 
twenty minutes?

MS. McDONALD: I think so.
THE COURT: Let’s try to.
MS. McDONALD: Some of these

exhibits are rather long, so I am trying 
to read through them.

THE COURT: I might say they are 
long, but I don't think they add too 
much to our overall intelligence,
Ms. McDonald.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q (By Ms. McDonald.) Referring to Exhibit 8
introduced this morning, on Page 78, there is 
a classification called office porter and you 
said that —  is that correct?

A That’s right.
Q And you would say that Mr. Bradley’s job was 

under this overall category of office porter?
A Yes, for the matter of reporting to railroad 

retirement, or the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. I get my things mixed up.

Q I will read the definition according to Exhibit 8 
under office porter: Porter assisting in moving 
furniture, carrying heavy parcels, carrying mail, 
sorting papers, opening mail.

Is that the full definition as containe<
A I am not positive that is the full definition. 

There would be a way to find it.
Q Is there any further definition of an office 

porter on this document, Defendant Company's 
Exhibit 8?

A Not in that, no, ma'am, excuse me.
Q So there is no mention under the description of 

office porter of weighing mail, of posting mail, 
preparing certified letters for mail, registered 
mail, is that correct?

V or »



1
2
\

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 s
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

I A That is true.
Q All ol these are duties that Mr. Bradley performed 
A According to his testimony.
Q Then you agreed?
A I have no reason to doubt it.
Q Now, Mr. Adams, I want to refer to Defendant

Company’s Exhibit 11, which was introduced today. 
This was a statement prepared by you showing 
other classifications —  why don’t you repeat 
again what that exhibit is?

A This is a statement that I made following a
check I had made of the rates of pay on another 
exhibit to find out why jobs were classified as 
a clerk's job which paid approximately the 
equivalent or less than what Mr. Bradley received 
in his position.

Q Now,there are twenty-three positions on that 
exhibit. Is that correct?

A That is true.
Q Now, is it not true that none of these positions, 

with the exception of one, and that is twenty-one, 
head file clerk, have any supervisory duties over 
any employees?

A I could read it and tell you. I am sure they
don't. I see none that have any indication that



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

they would have.
Q This is a full statement of duties prepared by 

you as to each of these jobs?
A That is true.
Q Now, the only one that does have any supervisory 

duties, according to this exhibit, is Position 43. 
He is head file clerk making about two dollars 
more than what Mr. Bradley made. He is also 
Negro, is that correct?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q Is that what that one "N" means?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Now, referring to the first position, mail clerk, 

isn’t it true that this position was just 
instituted in 1969?

A That I do not know, Ms. McDonald.
Q Was it your testimony that you really don't know 

what is the percentage of mail that these mail 
clerks handle, Position 169?

A What percentage of the total mail of the building?
Q Yes.
A I did so testify, yes, ma’am.
Q Now, in Position 169 of mail clerk, the duties

are very similar to those performed by Mr. Bradley 
Is that correct, except for the supervisory

/ oJ-



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
II
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A Yes, ma'am.
Q And did you not testily that this job of mail 

clerk is in Group 1?
A That’s true. Yes, ma’am.
Q Referring to Defendant Company Exhibit 5, this

shows 131 Negroes employed as of March 31, 1971. 
Is that correct?

A If those are the figures, yes, ma'am, they are.
Q On Defendant Company’s Exhibit 12, which was

the number of Negro employees who have trans
ferred from either Group 2 or 3 to Group 1, there 
are twenty-three. Is that correct?

A I did not count them.
Q There are eight here and fifteen there?
A I’m sure that is true.
Q So would this indicate that only twenty-three 

Negroes out of 131 employed have transferred 
from Group 2 and 3 into Group 1?

A That would have to be true, yes, ma’am.
Q Mr. Adams, what are the educational requirements

for a rate clerk?
A Well, we require that a person who fills even 

the lowest, if that is a proper adjective, job 
of rate clerk, the one at the bottom in the wage 
scale, would have completed a rate course which



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

) 5
lo
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

would require them to study on their own time 
and there are three opportunities to do that, 
they can get it by correspondence from San 
Francisco or two schools are run in the building, 
but he must complete that course before he can 
start, and on the basis of what he does on that 
course would be whether or not we consider him 
qualified to even start.

Q Is there any educational requirement, high 
school diploma or anything like that, to be 
employed initially?

A Mrs. McDonald, I can't say. I would judge, to 
be a rate clerk?

Q Yes.
A Well, if we were hiring off the street, we would 

at least expect a person to have a high school 
education, because we would not think they could 
do without properly learning the work required.

Q You would expect them to have it?
A I do not know that.
Q Do you hire rate clerks who do not have high 

school diplomas?
A I do not recall our having hired a rate clerk 

off the street, Ms. McDonald, in some little 
time. I do not know when it was last done.

! 0 y-



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

!:>
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q Referring to Defendant Company’s Exhibit 13,
I note that the memorandum of agreement on the 
last page is signed by Mr. J. T. L. Renfrow and 
a Mr. V. J. Lebeaux. Are these officials of 589?

A I do not know. They were introduced to me as 
committeemen who were a part of the negotiating 
committee.

Q For 589?
A I do not know. 589 is not a negotiating unit, 

as you may have realized.
Q Now, referring to Company's Exhibit 14, the last 

page indicates that the signatures were not 
reproduced. Could you tell me why?

A Because they covered about three or four pages, 
and when that was made, and for the sake of 
brevity, we just an itted them. I do not believe 
that even I have in my book a copy of that 
agreement which would have those signatures on it. 
But there were people from all of the separate 
properties, as I remembered them there, and then 
people from the railroad on the other side that 
all signed a big, long signing deal there.

Q Now, this agreement is 125 pages. Is there any 
way that I can get a copy of the three or four 
more pages containing signatures?

•/ * C



I
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A Yes, ma'am. After lunch we will get you one.
I may have to give you mine because they are in 
short supply, but I will provide you with one.
Yes, ma’am.

Q Mr. Adams, has Southern Pacific since you have 
been employed had a policy of hiring Negroes 
for certain classifications and whites for others? 

A No, ma'am.
Q Has there ever been a practice for employing 

Negroes for one classification and whites for
another?

A That is probably true. This is Texas, and you 
know as well as I know that that was done in 
some instances. Yes, ma'am. But not as a matter 
of practice or company policy. No, ma'am.

Q Mr. Adams, you testified that you agreed with 
Mr. Bradley's description of his job duties 
except for the fact that he was supervisor of 
the mail room. Is that correct?

A Yes, ma'am.
Q Mr. Bradley was paid approximately forty dollars

a month more per month than the other mail
porters?

A That is true.
Q Why was Mr. Bradley paid this increment if he was

•/ o ,



1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20

21
22
23

24
25

not supervisor of the other mail porters?
A You had four people working in a room of their 

own and doing a similar task or the same task, 
all of them, and as in so many other cases in 
the railroad, we pay what in some instances would 
be called lead. For instance, we have lead 
laborers and lead this and lead that, which 
are people who receive a differential in pay 
for leading out in the work and seeing that it 
progresses in the proper fashion. So far as what 
you would actually call supervising, that is not 
included in that kind of differential.

Q What does leading out mean?
A To see that the work all moves smoothly and if 

this man got overloaded to see that someone 
stepped over and helped him out. I think 
probably most everybody did it voluntary.
But if not, the lead man was supposed to see 
that the work moved.

Q You never worked in the mail room, did you?
A No, ma'am, I did not.
Q Do you know that the mail porters acted volun

tarily most of the time?
THE COURT: Of course he doesn’t 

know that, Ms. McDonald.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5
Id
17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

A I did not make an observation of what people do.
MS. McDONALD: I have no further

quest ions.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. BURCH: Very little, Your 

Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Adams, when you got for me copies of 
Exhibit 14, did you deliberately omit the 
signatures?

A No. The typed form, in the form it was there, 
the signatures were omitted for brevity.

Q Is that the type form that you used for working 
purposes?

A Yes, it is.
Q You were asked questions about the negotiation 

of the 1965 agreement of consolidated seniority 
lists and you testified that you were working 
with a conciliator from the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission. Is that correct?

v of*.



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

IS
16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

3
A That is correct.
Q Old you disease with that eoaclllator the 

general Idea of the 1S66 
approach that yoe aad tin 
taking?

A That*8 tree.
Q 014 jroa send a conciliator a copy of the 1965 

agreement after it saa assented?
A We did.

MB. MePOtLMt Toar loeor, esc 
an, 1 object to thin lias of passtioalas 
1 vosld like Mr. Adana* last potation 
abort sending a copy of the ngieeaent 
to tbs eoaclllator to bo atrtabes. I 
think Nr. Barth blaaelX atatod earlier 
that it is not relevant as to what had 
gone on with KSOC, if bs la trying to 
laply tint DOC had glsea ita ataap of

i I cooldavt cars lens 
whether BSOC gars their ataap of approve 
It la not blading on as. I know the 
plaintiff started the ball rolling and 
opened it op, bat let*a lease it at 
that.

4  c. 9 ̂



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11
12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

A That is correct.
; Q Did you discuss with that conciliator the 

general idea of the 1965 agreement and the 
approach that you and the organization were 
taking?

A That’s true.
Q Did you send a conciliator a copy of the 1965 

agreement after it was executed?
A We did.

MS. MCDONALD: Your Honor , excuse 
me, I object to this line of questioning 
I would like Mr. Adams' last question 
about sending a copy of the agreement 
to the conciliator to be stricken. I 
think Mr. Burch himself stated earlier 
that it is not relevant as to what had 
gone on with EEOC, if he is trying to 
imply that EEOC had given its stamp of 
approval.

THE COURT: I couldn’t care less 
whether EEOC gave their stamp of approve 
It is not binding on me. I know the 
plaintiff started the ball rolling and 
opened it up, but let’s leave it at 
that.

V - .) jL



1
2
3
4

5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

1 5
1 6

17

18
19

20

21
22

23

24

25

MR. BURCH: Pass the witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:

Q Mr. Adams, was there an individual in NBRC
that was designated for you to deal with in the 
negotiations?

A Yes, sir.
Q Who was that individual?
A Well, the times that have been discussed here 

was Mr. P. J. Gibson.
Q From whan did you receive that designation?
A Fran the president of the International Union.

MR. HI (HIS AW: Nothing else.
MR. BURCH: That is all, Your 

Honor.
THE COURT: You may be excused,

sir.
(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: What else do you have, 
Mr. Burch?

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I have

v-V/ o



1
2
3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

waiting for use as witnesses Mr. Moore, who for a 
number of years was employed as Mr. Bradley's 
supervisor, and it was my intention to have Mr. Moore 
testify briefly about Mr. Bradley's duties, about the 
work in the mail room. I have photographs here that 
depict the mail room, and we will certainly give 
consideration over the lunch hour on whether we will 
make him a witness or not. I think it will be 
repetitive to some extent. Obviously, we think 
Mr. Moore's point of view and evaluation of Mr. Bradley 
job is different than what we have already heard. But 
that is the only other witness we have.

THE COURT: Okay. Does the union 
expect to have any testimony?

MR. HIGHSAW: We intend to call 
two witnesses, Mr. P. J. Gibson and Mr. L. M. Greater.

THE COURT: How long is that going 
to take? Will there be extensive testimony?

MR. HIGHSAW: No, they will not
be 1ong.

THE COURT: Do you anticipate any
rebut tal?

MS. MCDONALD: Yes. I don't know
how long it's going to be.

THE COURT: What do you expect to

T / <* "



1
2
3

4

5

6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
18
19

20

21

22
23

24

25

offer in the way of rebuttal?
MS. MCDONALD: I misunderstood you. 

I thought you were saying cross. I don't expect any 
rebuttal.

THE COURT: Let's try to be 
through by the middle of the afternoon. Be back at 
1 :30 today.

(Noon recess.)
THE COURT: Be seated, please.

You may go forward.
MR. BURCH: Your Honor, at this 

time I ask permission to recall Mr. Adams briefly, 
primarily to put in evidence a document which was 
received during the lunch hour.

THE COURT: What is it?
MR. BURCH: The document that 

did not show the signatures.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BURCH: A copy of the much 

discussed forms of Mr. Bradley's application for 
retirement benefits which we received from our office. 
It does not show a great deal except on the one point, 
Mr. Bradley was questioned —  well, he offered in 
evidence —

THE COURT: Somebody called him a



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3
clerk instead of a porter.

MR. BURCH: He testified that he 
either filled out or gave information to a clerk to 
fill out the form and he testified that he gave them 
his occupation as mail porter. This document which 
purports to be signed by him shows his occupation as 
mail clerk.

THE COURT: Show it to counsel 
and I am sure she will agree it is an accurate copy.

MS. McDONALD: Your Honor, I have 
no objection to the introduction of it in evidence.

THE COURT: It is received.
MR. BURCH: I have a couple of 

other exhibits, and if I may number this one out of 
order, I would like to make this Defendant Company 
Exhibit 17. The exhibit consists of three pages,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.
MR. BURCH: I offer Exhibit 17 in

evidence.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. BURCH: Your Honor, I 

finished counsel for the plaintiff copies of the
two Xerox pages which I represented to be the copies 
of the signatures on Company Exhibit 14.

L/4



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BURCH: And I would offer it

in evidence.
THE COURT: We don't need it.

Nobody questions it.
MR. BURCH: I have offered it to

the other side and will let it go at that. I also 
intend to ask Mr. Adams one question which I simply 
overlooked and if permitted I would expect him to 
testify that Mr. P. W. Gibson, who has been mentioned 
as Southern Pacific supervisor of employment, is 
absent on vacation.

being conceded?
THE COURT: No objection to that

MS. MCDONALD: No objection.
THE COURT: Very well, you may

call your next witness.

*//,*, «...



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

23
24
25

A. J. MOORE, i
a witness called for and on behalf of Defendant
Railroad, having been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BURCH:

Q Mr. Moore, would you state your full name, by 
whom you are employed and your position?

A A. J. Moore, employed by the Southern Pacific 
Transportation Company. I am manager of the 
central mailing and duplicating bureau.

Q Mr. Moore, how long have you been with the 
company?

A It will be forty-five years this next September.
Q How long have you been in your present position?
A Practically, you mean the title or department?
Q Either by this title or similar title, how long 

have you had your present duties?
A Since 1958.
Q Prior to 1958 what was your position and what 

were your duties?
A Foreman of the machine repair shop from 1939 

to 1958.
Q Were you familiar with Mr. Henry Bradley before

4/L «-



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

he retired from the company?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell us briefly what your duties and responsi

bilities are in your present job?
A In my present job?
Q Yes.
A Well, my duties are to oversee the entire

department, which includes the printing, office 
machine repairs and the central mailing bureau.

Q Are you covered by the labor agreement with the 
clerks’ organization?

A No, sir.
Q Are you in what is called an excepted position?
A That is correct.
Q How many people work in printing?
A Two at the present time.
Q How many in the office machine repair?
A Two more at the present time.
Q How many in the central mailing room?
A Four.
Q Are there any other employees who work under your 

supervision who are in excepted positions? Are 
they considered supervisors?

A Yes, sir. We have a foreman of the print shop, 
Mr. F. P. Tate.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

Q When you are absent from the building or when
you are absent on vacation, who takes over your 
job and your responsibility?

A Mr. Tate does.
Q Are you familiar with the. operations in the mail

room?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you spend any substantial part of your day in 

connection with the operation of the mail room?
A It would have to be on an average basis, because 

I would say it probably would be an hour and a 
half to two hours a day average.

Q Do you go in the mail room from time to time?
A Oh, yes.
Q Do you or not keep generally familiar with what 

is going on in the mail room?
A I do, yes, sir.
Q Were you familiar with Mr. Bradley's duties and

responsibilities in the mail room during the time 
he worked there and you were working there?

A Yes, sir.I
Q Is it correct or not that Mr. Bradley held a

position that paid more money than the other mail 
room porters?

A That is correct.



1
2
3
4

5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Q Prior to 1958 were you generally familiar with 
Mr. Bradley’s duties in the mail room?

A To some degree, not a whole lot.
Q Did you work in a location that was nearby?
A Yes. I would say within twenty feet of the mail

room.
Q What briefly were Mr. Bradley’s duties and

responsibilities during the time he worked there 
under your supervision?

A Under my supervision?
Q Yes.
A Well, he was what you would call a lead man. He 

was to see that the flow of mail was constant.
For example, if mail piled up in a given area, 
he was either himself to get it smoothed out or 
designate someone who was available to get it 
moving smoothly, check the dates on the postage 
machine, be sure that that was correct, check 
out registered and certified mail, be sure that 
they were written up. That, as far as I can say, 
would be about the extent of it.

Q Did you consider Mr. Bradley a supervisor over 
the men in the mail room?

A No, sir.
Q As far as you knew, did the other porters in the



337
mail room consider him a supervisor?

MS. McDONAID: Objection, Your 
Honor. I think Mr. Moore is not the 
proper person to make a conclusion 
about what the other porters said.

THE COURT: Well, that may be well 
taken. You are asking what other 
people thought about the situation.

(By Mr. Burch.) During the time that you were 
his supervisor, did Mr. Bradley have the authority 
or exercise the authority to give any of the other 
porters time off from work?
No, sir.
Who had and exercised that authority?
I did.
When other porters wanted time off from their job, 
what procedure did they follow?
Well, they usually came to me and asked me about 
it.
Did Mr. Bradley have authority or exercise 
authority to schedule vacations of the other 
porters?
No, sir, he had no authority to schedule them. 
However, we did let them pick their vacation 
according to their seniority, as long as it didn't!

</ J-r ̂



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

1 ?
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2 5

interfere with the employees.
Q Did Mr. Bradley have authority or exercise the 

authority to settle any grievances that the 
porters might have?

A No, sir.
Q Who handled any questions that the porters had

in connection with their pay or their employment?
A Well, I don’t recall anybody. It would have 

been handled through the union representative 
and the labor relations department.

Q Did Mr. Bradley have or exercise any authority 
to take disciplinary action against the other 
porters?

A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any instance in which he ever did 

so?
A I have heard that, but I couldn’t verify it, no.
Q What are you referring to that you heard?

MS. McDONALD: Objection, Your 
Honor, it would be hearsay.

THE COURT: It probably would.
MR. BURCH: I will withdraw it.

Q (By Mr. Burch.) Did Mr. Bradley perform any work 
in the mail room that was similar to or the same 
as the work of the other porters?

y J / <



3 3 9

1
2
3

4

5

6

8
9

10
11
12
1 3

1 4

15
16
17
1 8

19

20
21
22
2 3

2 4

i.T>

A You mean in the mail room?
Q Yes, sir.

i A Yes, he did.
Q Did Mr. Bradley, for example, pigeonhole mail

j

from time to time?
| A Yes, he did.
I Q Do you know whether Mr. Bradley ever handled

sacks of mail? j
A I am not too sure, not in recent years, I don't !

believe because I knew his health was rather badi
and I think most of the other fellows knew it, j 
too, and they more or less did all of the heavy

j

handling.
i| Q The mail was handled in rather heavy bundles and 

packages in the mail room, was it not? 
i A Yes, sir, anywhere from fifty to a hundred poundsII a sack.

Q When Mr. Bradley was absent from the mail room, 
who did his normal work and filled in for him?

|
| A You mean during vacation and such?]
| Q Yes.
A Mackey or Ledette, Mr. T. H. liedette or Mr. Mackey,

j Q Were those two mail porters assigned to the mailI
room?

A Right.

<r . v



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12

13
14

15
16 

17

18
19

20

21
22
23

24

Q Is that the same Mr. Mackey now occupying the 
position Mr. Bradley once held?

A That is correct.
Q Approximately how long was Mr. Mackey in the mail j

room before Mr. Bradley left? ji
A I'd say about three years. I'm guessing now,

I can’t say for sure.
Q So far as you know, how long did it take for

Mr. Mackey to become proficient in handling the
.

work after he was given Mr. Bradley’s position? I
A About six weeks.
Q How did Mr. Mackey get that position, was he

! Iappointed or did he bid?|
i A It was by bid, but the senior employee turned 

it down.
Q What kind of job is Mr. Mackey doing now inIi

comparison with the way the mail room was handled i
previously?

I
I A Well, truthfully it is running quite a bit

smoother. If I may go a little further than 
this, right now the way it is running, ninety-nine 
percent of the time we wouldn’t even need a lead 
man because the group that I have in there now, 
each one is stationed in each one of the positions, 
and even have one new man who is in his third week25



341
l

3 ; Q

9

10 A
11 ; qii12
13 A
14 | Q

15 i
l< s  ' A
I? q

18 |
19

20 
21
22
23 /
24

Q

now who is practically able to take care of the 
mail room himself.
At the present time do you have any problem with 
the mail room handling all of the volume of mail | 
that comes in each day or not?
No, sir, it is cleaned out completely every day.
At the time Mr. Bradley worked in the mail room, 
did he have any authority to establish or change 
any of the procedures that were followed in there?I
Not without my consent, no, sir.
Did Mr. Bradley in fact change any procedures

]
in the mail room on his own initiative?
No, sir.
Did Mr. Bradley ever come to you with suggestions | 
about procedural changes?

lYes, sir, he did.
Did you follow those suggestions or not, or can 
you tell us in general?
No, sir. Most of them I didn’t feel were 
applicable to our particular situation, and 
generally speaking it would increase the number 
of employees and increase the rate of pay, plus 
the fact that he wanted to get all the mail room 
employees exempt from being bumped.
As far as procedures for handling the mail,

*• ai- 4—-



342

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
18
1 n
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

scheduling the movement of mail and that sort of I
thing, did Mr. Bradley change those or not?

A No, I don't think so. I think they are pretty 
much the same as they have always been.

Q In your own words now, I would like for you to
Itell us the general nature of Mr. Bradley's job, 

in terms of discussion that was required, judgment, 
tell us in your own words how would you describe j
his position?

I
J A Well, as I said before, he was the lead man in 

there and he had, or generally did, compute theI
postage and be sure that everything was in order,

)

nothing was left over. In other words, he was to 
see that the entire mail room was in smooth 
operation.

! Q Was his job one in which he operated within set 
procedures or did he use his own discretion, or 
how did he operate in there on a day to day basis? 

A Well, there is not much room for using your own 
discretion, it was more or less set up a certain 
way, certain areas for this mail to be handled, 
and there was not too many ways that you could 
change it.

Q Were the job duties performed by Mr. Bradley and|
the other porters, day by day, repetitive or not?

y  ^ •*—



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8 
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2 *

A I did not hear it.
i Q Were the duties that Mr. Bradley and the other

porters performed day to day basically the same, 
repeated over and over?

A Oh, yes, very routine.
Q Were you present, Mr. Moore, several weeks ago

when some photographs were taken in the mail room,;I
various shots of the mail room? ii '

A Yes, sir.
j

Q Mr. Moore, I want to show you a series of photo- j
Igraphs marked for identification as SP Exhibits 

15A through 151. Now, with the exception of 
Photographs G, H and I, I will ask you if these

.

photographs accurately depict the same central 
mail room where Mr. Henry Bradley worked until 
his retirement?

: A Yes, sir, this is the building board.
I Q I won’t ask you to describe each one in any

detail. If you would just look at them and tell
i

me whether or not they accurately depict various 
parts of the mail room?

A Yes, sir, as near as I can tell.
Q Just a couple of questions. Photograph E shows 

what I believe is a small storage area?I!
A That’s correct.



344

A
Q

1 Q
2 i
3 ' A
4 ; Q
5 !

6 j A
7 ! QI
8 
9

10
I

11
12 I A
13

1 4  ! Q

15 t

16
17

1 8

19
20 
21 
22
2 3

2 4

25

A
QI

i

!; A
! Q

Now, I will show you Photograph I, and ask you if ;l
that shows the interior of the machine repair?
Yes, sir, that is part of it.
About how far is that from the door into the mail 
room, is it just very nearby?
Yes, sir, within twenty feet.
I will ask you if Photograph H shows portions of 
the duplicating room?
Yes, sir, print shop, yes.
Now, does the mail room open directly up off of I
the print shop? |
Yes, sir, opens directly into this area with the 
exception of a little hall.
Is it correct or not that the entire area that |
you supervise is a fairly compact, contiguous 
area?
That’s correct.
Including the mail room, print shop and repair 
shop?
Right.
I will ask you about Photograph G, and ask that 
you tell us what that is?
That is a letter being sent by certified mail and 
is written up into a book. That is one that came 
in and it had to be written up in the book. It



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1C

11
12
13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
2 5

24
25

345

came in the U. S. mail to be written up in the 
book and signed for by Mr. J. R. Campbell of the

itraffic department.
Q Did Mr. Bradley and other mail room porters 

normally maintain this book?
A That's right.
Q Does this illustration here show pretty accurately! 

what was involved in registering mail in and out, 
as far as keeping a record is concerned?

A Well, outgoing mail didn't even require that much, 
because it has the tag on that is filled out by
the individual department. Now, registers were

■ ■written up in a separate book, besides this one. i
Q This book was out and available at the time you

j

took the photograph, was it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not take the photographs yourself, did you^
A No, sir, I did not. I wish I could.
Q Let me ask you about Photograph C, and ask you if

that depicts the scale that is in the mail room?
A That’s right.
Q I notice in front of the scale there is an area

with some white paper. What is in that area?
A Postage rules and regulations and rates —  I think

it is the word area —  zone, I was trying to say.



1 Q
2 A

3 Q
4

5

6 A
7

8

9

10

11

12

13
14

15

16

17 Q

18

19

20

21

22 A

23

24 Q

__________  346
A book laying open there?
That is the zone book that I was talking about.
Are these documents laid out in front of the 
scale plus the zone book, the books that are 
used for whatever purpose is necessary?
Most of them, I'd say ninety-nine percent of 
our mail, most of this is unnecessary, because 
like I say, it is routine mail, very few times -- 
if we have particular packages or something like 
that, or foreign mail, but other than that it is 
just regular mail or regular parcel post. It is 
all on the chart or scale.

MR. BURCH: I offer Defendants'
Exhibit No. 15 in evidence.

THE COURT: Received. i
MS. McDONAlD: No objection.

(By Mr. Burch.) Mr. Moore, I hand you what has ;
been marked for identification as SP Exhibit 16-A 
and B. Can you identify these copies which you 
obtained at my request of the rate schedules and 
other information?
That is the information that is under this glass 
in front of the scale, yes, sir.
Now, 16-B is a copy of a post office pamphlet,

2 5 is it not?



347
i A

2 ! q 
3 !
4
5 I
6 i:
7
8

9 I
,o i

u
i

12 I
13 l

i14 i

15 |
16 

i7 ; 
>8 j

I

19
:

20 !

Yes, sir. i
Showing some zone rates?

iTHE COURT: What is all this, just 
the data that the mail porter has to

Irefer to?
MR. BURCH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We don’t need that in 

the record. It will put Southern 
Pacific out of business to haul this 
to New Orleans. You can offer it if 
you want to.

MR. BURCH: I offer Exhibit 16 in 
evidence.

THE COURT: All right. Received. 
MR. BURCH: Pass the witness.

</Jo



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2 5

CROSS EXAMINATION

«

by m s . McDo n a l d :

Q Mr. Moore, you have been employed since 1930 what? 
A Pardon?
Q How long have you been employed with Southern 

Pacific?
A Since September 13, 1926.
Q So that is about what?
A It will be forty-five years the next September.
Q About the same as Mr. Bradley, and you are pre

sently the manager of the duplicating department? 
A Yes, ma’am.
Q What is your education and background?
A High school.
Q Have you had any training past high school?
A Nothing other than electronic training when I was

in the machine repair department, electronics and 
office machinery repair.

Q What is your race, Mr. Moore?
A My what?
Q Race. Are you white?
A White, that’s right.
Q How often would you come into the mail room?
A Oh, that's hard to say, anywhere from one to ten

y o/



349

times a day, sometimes I would be in there all day. 
Isn’t it true that you didn’t start coming into 
the mail room until after the lawsuit was filed?
Oh, no.
Did Mr. Malcolm tell you to come into the mail 
room and learn the job?
He didn’t ask me to learn it, but he asked me to 
come in and help out in there.
When was that?
Prior to the time the organization stopped me 
from doing that.
Did Mr. Hincher tell you to get into the mail room 
and learn how to do t he job?
No one ever told me to learn the job, no, ma’am. I
When did Mr. Hincher tell you to get in the mail
room?
Oh, that was when we had three men. I would say 
about 1962, possibly.
He did not tell you that after December of 1968? |
No.
A few minutes ago you said that you were working 
in the mail room until Mr. Greater told you to 
stop?
Yes, sir.
Who is Mr. Greater?



__________________________________________________ 350
He is the union representative for our local j
lodge.
Local 589?
Yes, ma’am.
Why did he tell you to stop working in the mail
room?
He didn’t think I had any business in there since 
I was an excepted employee.
Did you stop working in the mail room?
Yes, ma’am.
There are three different boards, is that correct, 
in the mail room?
Well, no, five boards.
Is one the inter-office?
Yes, inter-office. Another one is that which 
contains operating people, out on the line, 
superintendents, train masters and the like, 
general agents or sales representatives’ off 
line, a board containing the Texas & Louisiana 
line, all agents, and then we have the St. Louis 
and Southwestern or Cotton Belt board.
How many pigeonholes are there in the inter
office board?
Inter-office board, I would say, about fifty-five, 
fifty-eight.



351

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q Are there some to each unit?
A Yes.'

; Q How many pigeonholes are in the general agents’
board?

A There is about twenty-four that we use.
Q General agents?
A General agents, yes, ma’am.Ii Q And how many pigeonholes are there in the train

men?
MR. BURCH: I do not think this is 

relevant in any way.
THE COURT: I don’t think so 

either, but it is no more detailed
I than you were trying to put in a while 

ago. Go on.
| Q (By Ms. McDonald.) How many pigeonholes in
l train mail?
I A In train mail, you mean Texas & Louisiana Line

now?
Q Yes.
A I would say about one hundred thirty-eight.
Q Did you ever bundle mail, Mr. Moore?
A Pardon?

i Q Did you ever bundle mail?
A Oh, yes.

V Y



352

1 Q
i

Would you help carry it out?
2

1

A Right.
3 1 <» Now, head clerks are not excepted positions,
4

1
are they?

5 A The head what?
t> Q Head clerks, like the head rate clerk?
7 Al Rate clerks, no, that I can’t answer. I'm not
8 i sure.
9 :

I
10

n !
i

12
13 ||
14 ii
15 i:
16 ! 

17 !

i
** i

;
20 j

21 !

MS. McDONAlD: I have no further 
questions.

THE COURT: That is all, Mr. Moore.
Next.

(Witness excused.)

MR. BURCH: Your Honor, the 
Defendant Company rests.

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, I would 
like to call as a witness Mr. P. J. Gibson.

23

'v.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21
22
23

24
25

353
P. J. GIBSON,

a witness called for and on behalf of Defendant Union, 
having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:

Q Would you state to the Court your full name and
address?

A Patrick James Gibson, 4203 Allison Road.
Q Are you presently employed?
A No, I am retired.
Q Were you ever employed by the Southern Pacific 

Company?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you first become employed by the Southern 

Pacific?
A September, 1918.
Q What general craft or class of employment?
A Clerical.
Q How long did you work as an employee of Southern

Pacific Company?
A Until September 1, 1943.
Q What happened on that date?
A Well, I went to work for the Brotherhood



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11

12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

organization.
Q What was your position then?
A. I was assistant general chairman.
Q How long were you assistant general chairman?
A Oh, from September 1, 1943 to June 1st, 1950.
Q What happened on that date?
A Well, I was elected general chairman on June 1st, 

1950.
Q How long did you continue as general chairman?
A Until March 1, 1968.
Q At that date you retired?
A Yes, sir.
Q Specifically what were you general chairman of?
A Well, the Southern Pacific for the clerical 

organization in Texas and Louisiana.
Q Is this known as the system board or adjustment 

for the Southern Pacific Line for that area?
A That's correct.
Q And what geographical area did that cover?
A From New Orleans to El Paso, Houston to

Brownsville, Houston to Denison, Houston to 
Shreveport.

Q And how many members were there on the systems 
board of which you were general chairman?

A Well, it changed from time to time.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21
22
23

24
25

1Q At the time you retired, how many members were 
on the board?

A I couldn’t say definitely.
Q Who were these members, where did they come from?
A Well, they came from El Paso, San Antonio,

Corpus Christi.
Q How did they get to be members?
A They were elected by the members on those different 

divisions.
Q They were representatives of members?
A Yes.
Q Were they generally the elected representatives 

of grievance committees from local lodges?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what was your principal duty as general

chairman, Mr. Gibson?
A Well, to negotiate and maintain agreements between 

the carrier and the employee. I
MR. HIGHSAV: Your Honor, I have a 

copy of the document which is the 
Constitution of the Grand Lodge and 
protective laws. I don't wish to put 
the whole document in the record, because 
most of it is not pertinent, but I do 
want to have Mr. Gibson read a brief

v j <*



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20

2!
22

23

24
23

paragraph from it. I have a copy for 
counsel for the plaintiff. I am looking 
at Page 125.

THE COURT: You can read it to me 
if you want to.

MR. HIGHSAW: Section 14-A, this 
is Article I, Section 14-A of the 
Protective Laws of the Brotherhood:
"It shall be the duty of boards of 
adjustment, and the said boards are 
hereby authorized when acting in con
formity with the Constitution and 
statutes for government of lodges and 
protective laws of the Brotherhood and 
the By-Laws of the board of adjustment, 
to negotiate, maintain, revise, modify 
and adjust agreements establishing and 
covering wages, working conditions and 
other employment relations in their 
respective jurisdictions. Boards of 
adjustment shall have authority to 
delegate any of these duties to a 
committee consisting of such members and 
officers of the board as the boards may 
decide."



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

2 i
22
23
24
25

There is another sentence dealing 
with Railway Express which I have not

l

quoted from, Your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Highsaw.) Is that the statement of your 

duties as general chairman?
A That is correct.
Q Now, Mr. Gibson, did any of the local lodges under 

your jurisdiction have any authority to negotiate 
collective bargaining agreements?

A No, sir.
Q Let me ask you, who was the man that is known as 

local chairman of particular lodges?
A He was the local chairman elected by the members 

to handle grievances and complaints.
Q In other words, he was chairman of a local lodge 

grievance committee?
A That’s correct.
Q What grievances, what kind of problems?
A If the carrier violated a rule or mistreatment or 

probably dismissal.
Q In other words, it had to involve a question 

concerning the application of a collective 
bargaining agreement? 

j A That’s correct.
Q But if you had to change a collective bargaining

</ V c.



1
2

3

4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17
18
1 9

20
21

22
23

24
2 5

358

A
Q

A
Q

A
Q

A
Q

agreement, 
Yes.

that was a matter for your jurisdiction

Mr. Gibson, I have here some documents that have 
previously been entered in evidence in this case. 
One has been entered as Local 589 Exhibit 3, and 
it purports to be a letter from Mr. Henry H. 
Bradley addressed to you as general chairman 
dated June 9, 1967. Could you take a look at 
that and see if you recall that you received 
that letter?
Yes, I received it.
Now, I have here another document that has been 
admitted as Local 589 Exhibit 2 in the form of a 
letter dated July 11 to Mr. Bradley responding 
to his letter of June 9?
That is my letter, yes.
I have here another document dated January 23,
1968, Local 589 Exhibit 4, in the form of a letterI
from you to Mr. Bradley. Is that your letter?
Yes, that is my letter.
Now, Mr. Gibson, prior to the time that you 
received the letter dated June 9, 1967 from 
Mr. Bradley, identified as Local 589 Exhibit 3, 
had Mr. Bradley ever made a written complaint to 
you about his classification of his job and his

CL



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5
16
17
} ~
19

20

21

22
23

24

seniority status and ask you to change it?
A No, sir.
Q Had you ever had an oral conversation with

Mr. Bradley on this subject?
A No.
Q Did he ever approach you orally and ask you to

■do anything?
A No.
Q So this correspondence then represents the first 

time that this subject was ever brought to your 
attention, and these letters in which you answered 
Mr. Bradley represent your views to Mr. Bradley 
on that subject?

A Yes.
Q Now, was the question ever presented to you,

Mr. Gibson, of a protest from Mr. Bradley 
concerning, a protest of seniority roster?

A Not until I received that letter in 1967. I don’t 
recall the date of it now.

Q The one I’m referring to is June 9th?
A That’s correct. That is the only complaint that

I ever had from him.
I Q Are seniority rosters posted on this property 

which you served as general chairman?
A Yes, sir. They are posted on the bulletin boards,

<L.



3tXJ

1
2 ■

l
3

•
5
6 i Q
7 A

8 ! Q
9

10

11 | A

12 ! Q

14

15

16

17
18

A

; q
19

2 0  ! A

21 i Q
22 j A
7 3 1“ t
24 Q
25 * A

the rule requires that before ten or more 
employees, a bulletin board will be posted for 
the benefit of putting notices involving the 
interests of members and seniority rosters are 
posted on that board.
Are they issued every January 1st?
Yes.
And they are posted on the bulletin boards on 
the property. Are they posted in the local 
lodges, do you know?
The local lodge gets a copy of it.
Is there anything in the rule agreement 
concerning a protest by member of the roster 
that has been posted?
Yes, sir, there is rules in there. It provides 
that the employee must protest the roster within 
a certain period of time.
Did that period of time change while you were 
general chairman?
Yes.
What was it originally?
It was originally, I believe, thirty days.
I would have to look at the rule book.
At the time you retired, was it greater than that? 
Ninety days.



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 3
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
)

361
------------ — — ---------------- —  --------------------1
Q Now, during the time you were general chairman,

beginning in 1950, did the group of employees 
among which Mr. Bradley was an employee, come 
under the collective bargaining agreement?

A What date now?
Q I said sometime after the 1950's, from ’54, did 

this group come under the collective bargaining 
agreement and get seniority in their jobs?

A Yes, effective April 1, 1954.
Q From that date on a seniority roster was posted

every year with respect to these employees?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Bradley’s name would have been on that 

roster?
A Yes.
Q Do you know Bradley personally?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is he in the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q During this whole period of time, 1954 on until 

you got these letters in 1967, did Mr. Bradley 
ever protest to you the seniority status?

A No, he did not.
Q Or the employee’s position on the roster?
A No.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

13
16

17

18
19

20

2;
2/
2 3
24
25

362
Q Now, I'm going to go back again to the 1950’s |

when you were —  right before this group of 
employees was brought on under the collective 
bargaining agreement. Did you ever tell 
Mr. Bradley or any other employee for that matter 
that if they would become a member of the union, 
the union would get their job reclassified?

A No, I certainly didn’t.
Q Was there any need to do this?
A No, because there was a union contract in effect, 

and they had to join within sixty days or their !
job was placed under the agreement. There was no 1 
need to ask them to join.

Q In other words, by negotiating with the railroad 
you brought this excepted group under the 
collective bargaining agreement and they became 
subject to the union shop provision and had to 
join the union?

A That’s correct.
Q Do you know whether or not that was the time 

that Mr. Bradley did join the union?
A Well, he joined a few days just before the 

deadline, latter part of May, 1954.
Q Now, Mr. Gibson, under the collective bargaining 

agreement, did they have Group 2 and 3 employees,



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

did they have a right to bid for Group 1 jobs?
A Yes, sir, they did.
Q Was this true all during the time you were general 

chairman?
A It has always been true.
Q Where it changes in 1966, they got Group 1 

seniority, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, if a Group 2 employee did bid for a Group 1 

job, and he subsequently was bumped in that 
Group 1 job, out of that Group 1 job by another 
member with greater seniority, what were his 
bidding rights, the one who was bumped?

A First he had to exhaust his rights from Group 1
before he could go back to Group 2. If he had no 
junior employee he could bump, he could return 
to Group 2, displace a junior man.

Q And what seniority would he have to utilize to 
return to Group 2?

| A He would use his regular seniority in Group 2.
J Q Assuming Mr. Bradley’s seniority date was 1934

and if he had been a Group 2 employee and had 
been bumped out and exercised all of his Group 1 
rights, he could have used his 1934 seniority 
date to bump another Group 2 employee?

4  V- (a A



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

13

16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24
25

364
A That’s correct.
Q Now, did you ever tell Mr. Bradley or any

employee on the property that if they did have 
a Group 1 job and were bumped out of it in a 
reduction in force, that they had no Group 2 
seniority rights to exercise?

A I certainly did not, because they done it over 
and over again on the railroad.

Q Did you ever go to lodge meetings of the lodges 
that belonged to your jurisdiction?

A Yes.
Q This includes Lodge 589?
A Yes, sir.
Q At these lodge meetings did you ever discuss 

bidding rights and bidding procedures?
A Only if someone asked.
Q Did you ever, at any of these meetings, tell 

the members that they had rights to bid group 
on jobs regardless of what group they were in?

A I tried to impress upon them that was the way 
to get into Group 1.

Q And this was also true in Lodge 1534?
A That’s right, particularly true with that lodge.

MR. HIGHSAW: That is all, Your
Honor.

4 *■ / ■a-



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13
1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

20
21

22
2 3
24
2 5

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS, MCDONALD:

Q Mr. Gibson, when was Lodge 1534 merged with 
Lodge 589?

A I really don’t know. I think it was 1966, but 
we have a record here somewhere.

Q It was after 1965?
A Yes.
Q Was that about January 1, 1966?
A I believe it was sometime in there. You see, the 

systems board didn’t have anything to do with the 
merging, the two lodges get together.

Q Did the systems board let these two lodges exist, 
each of the lodges had a charter?

A Yes, sir.
Q And couldn’t the system board have revoked the 

charter of one of them?
A No. The Grand Lodge is the only one who can

revoke a charter.
Q And that is the Grand Lodge in Ohio?
A It is in Chicago now, the office is.
Q Lodge 1534 consisted solely of black persons,

is that true?
A Yes.



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25

366
Q

A

Q

A

Q

i
1

Now, why was it that these two lodges, Lodge 1534 
and Lodge 589 existed until they were merged 
finally in 1966 or the end of 1965?
That would be something that the Grand Lodge —  
they are the ones that set up the jurisdiction 
of lodges. The systems board does not.
What was your position over two lodges, did they 
look to you for advice?
Well, yes, and also we negotiated changes in 
rates of pay and rules for those, just like we 
did for all the other lodges under the jurisdic
tion of the systems board.
What was the bargaining jurisdiction, what was 
the area of representation that Local 1534 had, 
what jobs?

MR. HIGHSAW: I object to that 
question because it involves a legal 
conclusion that they had some representa
tion rights. It is our position that 
they didn’t represent anybody. The 
BIAC represented them in the matter of 
their bargaining rights and the systems 
board acted for BIAC.

THE COURT: What are you asking
him, please?



367
1 I|
2 I

3
4 !
5 |
6 !
7

8 ! 
9 ;

10

1 1 1I12 |
.

13 Ii14 I
f

i

15 I
16 j

17 
18 i

19  i
20
21 !
22 i

Q

A
Q
A

Q

2 4

2 5

MS. McDONALD: I am trying to find 
out who was in 1534, what jobs.

THE COURT: Did you know what jobs 
1534 covered?

THE WITNESS: They covered mail 
handlers and laborers in the freight 
station, laborers in the stores 
department.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, was L. M. Greater chairman 
of the grievance committee?
Of Lodge 589.
Was he a member of the systems board?
Yes.
Now, if an employee had a grievance and brought 
it to Mr. Greater who was local chairman of the 
grievance committee from 589, could he not then

Ibring it to the systems board of adjustment?
If he couldn’t settle it with the head of the 1
department, his function was to handle it with 
the different heads of the departments and if he 
couldn't satisfactorily dispose of it, he turned 
it over to us for further handling.
Couldn’t he bring it to the systems board of 
adjustment for resolution?
He did. This particular case, yes.

so



368
Q

2 1
3 i
4 !I
5
6 :I!
7

8 |1
9

10 !I
11

!
12 i
13 )

j14
i

15 1
16 j|
17 !!
18 J
19

20 
21 
22
23 '

24 !
25 1

A
Q

Isn't it true that employees generally looked 
to the chairman of the local grievance committee 
of 589 to solve the grievances?
Well, that is the way they are supposed to, but 
an awful lot of them go around that. But that 
is the primary purpose.
In other words, they are not supposed to come to ;
you directly?
No.
They are not supposed to go over you and go to 
Mr. Denis who is the president in Ohio, or who 
was in Ohio?
No, so long as we are handling it.

MS. McDONALD: No further questions 
MR. HIGHSAW: I would like to ask 

one question.
II



369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19

20 
21 
22
23

24
25

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:—
ji
Q Mr. Gibson, was the question of the reclassifica

tion of Mr. Bradley’s job and changing his 
seniority status, was that a grievance involving 
an interpretation or application of the agreement 
which Mr. Greater had handled?

A No, it was not.I
| Q What was required?
A It required handling by the systems board with

j

the management of the railroad.
Q And what would that change of handling have

required, what would you have had to have done?
’

A Well, we would, that is a case, it is not a
violation of rules, that would be a request for 
a change in title or a change in rate of pay.

Q What then, amend the collective bargainingi
agreement, is that what you have to do, bring 
up whether the agreement covers this particular 
subject matter?

A That’s correct.
MS. McDONALD: I have just one more 

question.



RECROSS EXAMINATION

! BY MS. MCDONALD:

Q If an employee had such a grievance that might
iI have considered amending the collective bargainingi

agreement, is it true that he was still to go to 
Mr. Greater, and Mr. Greater would bring it on up? 

A That's correct.

;
\
i
j

i

MS . McDONALD: Thank you.
THE COURT: That is all, thank you,

sir. Next?
(Witness excused.)



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

371
■ r ■ ...... ‘ I

L. M. GREATER,
a witness called for and on behalf of the Defendant 
Union, having been duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:

Q Mr. Greater, would you state to the Court your 
full name, address and present employment?

A L. M. Greater, 1135 Prince, Houston, Texas, 
chairman of the local committee, Lodge 589.

Q Who is your employer?
A Southern Pacific.
Q Do you hold a full-time job with the Southern 

Pacific?
A Yes, I do.
Q What job do you hold?
A Assistant head clerk of the timekeeping section.
Q What group classification is that job?
A District 1, Group 1.
Q When did you originally go to work for the 

Southern Pacific?
A September 19, 1938.
Q What was your original job?
A Messenger.

s/ i  V



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14

15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

_ ___________________________________ _________________ 372
Q Approximately how many different jobs have yout

held over the years?
A Estimate between five and six.

i
i Q If you are a full-time employee of the Southern
| Pacific, when do you perform your duties as local ji

chairman, grievance committee of Lodge 589?
I
A Normally we try to take care of these before !

working hours in the morning, during our lunch
i hour or after work, but we do handle it sometimes 

on the carrier’s time.
| Q Specifically what are your functions as chairman 

of the grievance committee of Lodge 589?
;

A To handle grievance claims on the local estab
lished rules of Local 589.

Q Does that include claims that involve questions 
of interpretation, application of the collective 
bargaining agreement?

A I would say no. It would be mostly to the rules 
of the local, well, I would say handbook.

, Q You mean this blue handbook?
A Yes.
Q Violations of rules in this book?
A Yes, sir.

! Q When somebody requested this to be amended, do
j

you have any authority to do that?

y r i

j



No, sir, I don't.
What would you do with such request as that?
I would take it to my general chairman and 
discuss it with him.
How did you get to being chairman of the 
grievance committee of the local lodge?
By election of the Lodge 589.
How many members of the grievance committee 
are there?
In the neighborhood of five or six. They vary 
from time to time. I have resignations, but 
normally run about five.
Are all members of the white race?
No, I have two colored gentlemen.
How did they get to be members of the committee? > 
I appointed them.
What are the names of the two Negro members of 
the committee?
Frank Harrison and Paul Stivers.
Lodge 589 is an integrated lodge, has both Negro 
and white members?
Yes.
Did you, at my request, check the exact date 
Lodge 589 became an integrated lodge?
April 1st, 1966.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
2 3

3
Q How many members would you say, approximately, 

how many Negro members does Lodge 589 have?
A It would strictly be an estimated guess, I would 

say over a hundred.
Q And about what percentage of the total membership 

does that represent?
A I would say maybe seventeen to twenty percent.

It is strictly an estimated guess.
Q What seniority do members of Lodge 589 work in, 

what seniority district?
A It is entirely District 1.
Q In the course of a year, how many grievance 

claims will you handle with the railroad on 
behalf of the members of that lodge?

A Are these written grievances?
Q Whether they ask you to handle it verbally or in 

writing?
A We have verbal grievances, some of my people come 

to me and if it is a minor problem, I can go to 
management and sometimes we settle it then on the 
property right there.

Q How many of those do you have in a year altogether
A I would say in the neighborhood of around twenty-

five, maybe.
Q Mr. Greater, I have here a document entered in the

y \7+-



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

record as Exhibit 8, and I would like to have 
you take a look at it and tell us what that 
document is?

A Yes, that is our membership book, we call it.
Q Does every member of Lodge 589 have such a book?
A Yes, they should be issued a book. Some of the

new members have not received theirs, but any 
member of a year or more definitely have a book 
issued to them.

Q And what is the designation of general office on 
there mean, what does that signify?

A Well, the lodge has been identified as 589 
general office.

Q In other words, that is where the members of the 
lodge work?

A Yes, but we do have some members in the store 
department, which is maybe a couple miles over.

Q Do their memberships say general office?
A Yes. Anyone who has come into our lodge would 

have that identification.
Q Regardless of what job they hold with Southern 

Pacific?
A That's correct.
Q In other words, this doesn't designate the job?
A No, that is just identification of our Lodge 589.

v-S jjr so



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q Mr. Greater, there has already been entered into 
the record some documents which I would like to 
show you. A document has been entered as 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 which is in the form of a 
letter addressed to you by Mr. Henry Bradley 
dated July 2, 1967. Would you look at that and 
see if you can recognize that letter?

A Yes, sir.
Q And I also have here a document that has been 

identified as Local 589 Exhibit 3, which is a 
letter dated June 9, 1967 from Mr. Bradley to 
Mr. Gibson and the letter shows on the face that 
a copy was sent to you. Did you receive a copy 
of that letter?

A Yes, sir.
Q I have here, Mr. Greater, a document that has

been placed in the record as Local 589 Exhibit 1, 
which is a letter from yourself to Mr. Bradley 
dated August 13, 1967. Did you send Mr. Bradley 
that letter?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, this letter states that you had read at the

lodge meeting of Lodge 589 the night of June 11,
1967 letters which you had received from 
Mr. Bradley?



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25

A Yes, sir.
Q And was there discussion at the lodge meeting 

that night on Mr. Bradley's claim or request 
that he should have his job reclassified and 
his seniority status changed?

i

A Yes. We discussed the letter and we agreed to go j 
ahead and turn it over to my general chairman | 
since I had no power to change titles and rules 
and pay rate or seniority on that level. I did 
forward it to my general chairman at the request 1 
of the lodge. It was voted on.

Q Was this the first time that you had ever j
received any written complaint from Mr. Bradley 
on this subject or request to take some action?

A These were the first letters I received from him, |(
yes.

Q Now, Mr. Greater, are the seniority rosters made 
up every January 1 and posted on the property? !

A Yes, sir, we try to put rosters on the bulletin 
boards after the first of the year.

Q Is there a period of time in which the employee 
has to protest his seniority position on those 
rosters?

A Yes, ninety days.
Q Did Mr. Bradley —  by the way, when were you first



1
2
3

4

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

elected general chairman of 589?
A I think it was in the latter part of '65.
Q Where would the protest be filed if an employee

had to protest, make it to the company or to you?
A They should be filed with the local protective 

committee member.
Q And that would come to you then as chairman of 

that committee?
A Yes, it could.
Q Since you became local chairman of Lodge 589, 

did Mr. Bradley become a member of that lodge 
on July 1, 1966?

A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Bradley ever protest the seniority roster

to you other than this protest contained in these 
June and July, 1967 letters?

A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q Now, did Mr. Bradley ever at any time, within 

your recollection, discuss with you and 
Mr. Greater bidding for a Group 1 job?

A He did, yes, he did come into our department one 
time.

Q Approximately when was this?
A Strictly estimated, seems to me it was in ’67.

I am not sure of that date now, sir, or the year.



1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Q Was this in the general office building?
A Yes, sir.
Q What floor?
A Pardon?
Q On what floor?
A Houston zone office on the sixth floor.
Q And that is where you were working at that time?
A Yes, sir, at that time I was employed on the

sixth floor.
Q And he came in and talked to you?
A I don’t know whether he came directly to talk 

to me about the job, but he came up to survey 
the collection department. He did talk to me 
about it. I told him if he wanted the job all 
he had to do was place the bid on it, but he 
would have to bid on the position.

Q During the course of that conversation, did you 
tell Mr. Bradley that if he bid on and obtained 
the job in the collection department that he 
would lose his Group 2 seniority rights?

A No, sir, I didn’t tell him he would lose his 
seniority rights. No, sir.

Q Did you tell him if he bid on the job and obtaine 
it and was subsequently bumped out of it, he woul 
have to exercise his Group 1 rights before he cou



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

exercise any bumping rights in Group 2?
A Yes, sir, I did discuss that.
Q To the best of your recollection, did you ever 

have any other conversation with Mr. Bradley on 
this subject?

A Not on the bidding part, no, sir.
Q What other, when you say not on the bidding part,

what other part?
A He had talked to me about establishing his

seniority at an earlier date than what we had 
on the roster of 1-1-66.

Q What did you tell him about that?
A Well, I don’t recall exactly the conversation.
Q Was that before or after you received the June 

and July, 1967 letters?
A It might have been before. I am not sure, sir.
Q Go diead and explain the circumstances?
A What I was going to say is, we had talked about 

the date that he was placed on Group 2, and in 
the conversation I told him that I didn't have 
the authority to change that date. That was 
just about the conclusion of it. I told him 
I had no authority for that change.

Q Did you indicate to him that required changing 
the collective bargaining agreement?

y«.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, Mr. Greater, are copies of collective

bargaining agreements available to members in 
the general office, that is, are they available 
somewhere?

A Yes, sir, the local lodge. We have them on file 
and the protective committee members normally 
have them. We may not have it complete, but we 
try to keep the latest ones, sir.

Q Are they available, do you know, any place on
the property, the office building of the railroad?

A The April, ’66 agreement and the *63, we try to 
keep those on the board.

Q A bulletin board in the railroad office?
A We have a large bulletin board in the basement 

and also have a large board on the sixth floor 
and also the other offices have boards where 
there are, I think, ten or fifteen more people 
in the office.

Q Is that where seniority rosters and copies of 
agreements and things of interest to employees 
are posted?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, has Mr. Bradley ever come to you and asked 

you to take a look at the copy of the collective



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

bargaining agreement?
A I don’t recall it, sir.
Q Did you ever go down to the mail room at

Mr. Bradley’s request and take a look and see 
what was going on down there?

A Yes, sir. One day he stopped me and asked me
to come in and look at his mail room down there, 
and he showed me the mail room.

Q Did you make any comment to him about work or
status of the mail room or promise to do anything 
about it?

A I made no promises, no, sir. And I made no 
statement that I know of.

Q Mr. Greater, I have here a copy of a document 
entered into the record as Defendant Southern 
Pacific Exhibit 2, which is a memorandum agreement 
between the Southern Pacific and the Brotherhood 
of Railway and Airline Clerks dated December 29, 
1965, and it bears the signatures of Pat Gibson, 
general chairman, assistant general chairman 
Mr. Gates and yourself as committeemen. Is that 
your signature on the agreement?

A Yes, sir.
Q Are you a member of the systems board?
A Yes, sir.



1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Q Were you serving on this committee when you 
signed this agreement?

A Yes, sir.
Q As a member of the systems board?
A I am a member of the systems board.
Q Were you appointed to that committee by Mr. Gibsor 

do you recall?
A Each local chairman reports to the systems board.
Q But when you sat down to talk to the railroad

about this particular grievance, did Mr. Gibson 
ask you to serve on this committee with him?

A Yes.
MR. HIGHSAW: That is all, Your 

Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MS. MCDONALD:

Q Mr. Greater, you do have authority to settle 
grievances on your own, do you not?

A On rules grievances.
Q And you can accept the grievances and resolve them 

on your own, if you are able to, is that right?



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

A You are talking about the rules agreement?
Q Well, can you settle grievances on your own, 

any grievances?
A Some I can.
Q Which ones can you?
A The rules agreements of the handbook.
Q Violations of the contract?
A Yes.
Q Is there a provision in the contract between

Southern Pacific and the Union that says that 
there will be no discrimination against any 
employee regardless of race or color?

A I am not sure.
Q Mr. Greater, I am going to show you what is in 

evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. Now, this is 
now in evidence as a letter that Mr. Bradley 
received and which is signed by you. Is this 
your signature here?

A Yes, ma’am.
Q In this letter you say, and I am quoting from it, 

"Referring to your complaint about your seniority, 
title and rate of pay, I have talked to the 
general chairman and we have reviewed your file 
and we find that you have the correct seniority 
date under the rules of the agreement. In

v > /



1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

reference to your title and change in rate of pay, 
we find that we cannot change this.”

Now, who is the "We" that you are 
talking about in that letter?

A Me and my general chairman. I had talked to my 
general chairman on this and we discussed it.

Q And you concurred with the decision of the 
general chairman not to change either the 
seniority date, the title or the rate of pay 
for Mr. Bradley?

A Well, I couldn’t say that I could change it on
my authority, because I don’t have that authority.

Q Well, when you say we, were you including your
self in this letter, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10?

A We had a conference on this thing.
Q Who is the we, was it you, isn't that what we 

means, me and someone else?
A In this conference it was Mr. Gates and myself, 

yes.
Q So it was Mr. Gates and yourself who made the 

decision?
A By using the term we, I didn’t have the authority 

to use it, then.
Q When you said we —

THE COURT: I am getting lost.



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

Q All I am trying to find out, were you including 
yourself when you said we? Isn’t that what it
means?

A Yes.
Q And who else?
A Mr. Gates, the general chairman.
Q Now, you testified earlier that Mr. Bradley had 

not protested his seniority date to you until 
you received this letter in July of *67, is that 
correct?

A Yes.
Q Now, suppose Mr. Bradley had protested his

seniority date when the roster first went up, 
would your decision have been any different?

A I would have to take his complaint and turn it 
over to my general chairman, and he would have 
to get together with the carrier, because I would 
have no authority, as I said before, I would have 
to give it to my general chairman and let him 
take it up to the carrier.

Q Now, in this letter to Mr. Bradley signed by you, 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10, "We find we can’t change 
your date,” your seniority date. What I'm asking 
you, would your decision have been any different 
if he protested the seniority when the seniority



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

roster first went up?
A Yes, sir, it would be different.
Q You would have suggested that the contract be 

amended?
A No, no, I couldn't suggest. As I said, I would 

take it over to my general chairman, his 
complaint, and let my general chairman get 
together with the carrier.

Q What could you have done for Mr. Bradley if he 
had protested his seniority within ninety days?

MR. HIGHSAW: That is just what he 
answered, Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: He may answer again. 
This is not the first time we have 
repeated.

A As I said before, if Mr. Bradley had protested 
his seniority, I would directly take it to my 
general chairman.

Q That is exactly what you did with this when 
Mr. Bradley wrote you in July, 1967?

A Well, I think that has more to it than seniority.
Q That portion of the letter that deals with

seniority, didn't you tell me that you had to 
take that to your general chairman, this was what 
you did, and you then wrote him a letter,



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

Plaintiff s Exhibit 10, saying we can’t change 
it. Is that right?

A Yes.
Q Well, now -- okay.

Now, when Mr. Bradley wrote you this 
letter dated July 2, 1967, which is in evidence 

Plaintifffs Exhibit 9, did you ever write
back a letter to Mr. Bradley telling him you 
don't have the authority to help, why don't you 
go somewhere else, did you ever write a letter 
in that substance?
No. The only letters I have are the two letters 
in the file which you have a copy of.

Q

Q

The letters you are referring to is this one 
dated December 10, 1967, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10?

MR. HIGHSAW: Your Honor, the 
August 13 letter, which was written and 
has been introduced in evidence, I intro 
duced it yesterday, and the witness 
identified it today. It was written on 
August 13 and it told Mr. Bradley that 
a meeting had been held and Mr. Bradley 
testified yesterday he was at the meetin 
and he knew what was done.

(By Ms. McDonald.) Now, my question to you, when



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

IS
16
17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

Mr. Bradley wrote you that letter dated July, f67 
setting forth his complaint, did you ever advise 
him by mail that you didn't have authority to 
help him, that he should go somewhere else? You 
said these two letters here and I am referring to 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 and Union Exhibit 1. Are 
these the only two letters you wrote back to him?

A Yes, sir.
MS. McDONALD: I have no further 

questions.
MR. HIGHSAW: I have one question.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HIGHSAW:

Q Mr. Greater, at that meeting when it was 
considered, did Mr. Bradley object to the 
recommendation of the local lodge that his 
matter of adjustment of his seniority status 
and job classification be sent to the general 
chairman?

A I did not hear from him on it.
MR. HIGHSAW: That is all.

- 7*2



1
2

3
4
5
6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16
17
18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

THE COURT: That is all, thank you,
sir.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HIGHSAW: I have one other 

thing that will close out our presentation. I have 
here the interrogatories that were filed by Local 589 
addressed to Plaintiff Henry Bradley dated April 7,
1969 and filed on or about that date. The answers are 
filed to them dated June 19, 1969 and I would just 
like to read into the record three of the questions 
and answers.

First, I would like to read 
Question 13: "State whether plaintiff ever filed an 
objection to the grant to him of a seniority date of 
January 1, 1966 in Group 1.

"Answer: Yes.
"Question 14: If the answer to 

Item 13 is yes, then furnish the following information, 
A, the date such an objection was filed.

"Answer: June 9, 1967.
"B. Whether the date of such

<//J



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

filing was in accordance with his contract of employ
ment .

"Answer: Unknown.
C .: The name or names of persons 

with whom such an objection was filed.
"Answer: Mr. P. J. Gibson.
"D.: If such objection was in 

writing, please furnish a copy thereof.
"Answer: See Exhibit A."

Exhibit A was the letter of June 9, 1967 which we 
have been referring to.

Now, the next one, and the last 
one, is Question 18: "State whether plaintiff has 
ever bid for a vacancy in a job classified as a 
Seniority Group 1 position.

"Answer: No."
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HIGHSAW: That concludes our

presentation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that all the

evidence we have?

Your Honor.

minutes and then I

ms . McDonald : we

THE COURT: Well, 
will hear from you

have no rebuttal,

let's take ten 
all.



1
2
3

4

5

6

7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(Here followed arguments of 
counsel.)

(Adjournment at 3:45 p.m.)

* * * * *



CLERK, U. 6. UibirtlCl L O U R  I 
S O U T H E R N  DIS1RICT OF. TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D  
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION S E P  i 5 19/1

HENRY BRADLEY, X
X

Plaintiff, X
X

vs. X
X

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, X
INC., AND BROTHERHOOD OF X
RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM- X
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,X 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES,X 
LOCAL 589, X

X
Defendants. X

V. BAILEYf 
BY. DEPUT.Y.

ERK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 68-H-1079

McDonald & McDonald (Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald), 
Houston, Texas, attorneys for Plaintiff.

Baker & Botts (V. R. Burch, Jr., Esq.), Houston, 
Texas, attorneys for Southern Pacific Company, Inc.

Brown, Kronzer, Abraham, Watkins & Steeley (Curtiss 
Brown, Esq.), Houston, Texas, and James L. Highsaw, 
Esq., Washington, D. C., attorneys for Brotherhood 
of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight 
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local 589.

September 15, 1971

£20



M E M O R A N D U M :

FINDINGS OF FACT AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This cause came on for trial on the 18th day 
of August, 1971, before the Court sitting without a jury, 
and after hearing and considering the evidence, exhibits 
and stipulations of the parties and the arguments and 
authorities of counsel, and being fully advised in the 
premises, the Court now makes the following Findings of 
Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1(a) Southern Pacific Transportation Company 

(the "Company"), successor to Southern Pacific Company, 
the named defendant employer, employs over one hundred 
employees in the operation, as a common carrier, of inter
state rail lines in Texas and other states.

(b) The defendant Local 589 of the Brotherhood 
of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, 
Express and Station Employees (the "Local") is a labor

-2 - 6 0 1



organization whose membership is composed of certain em
ployees of the Company, most of whom are employed in and 
about the Company's general offices in Houston, Texas.

(c) The members of the Local are represented 
for collective bargaining purposes under the Railway Labor 
Act by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship 
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees 
(the "BRAC") and are covered by a bargaining agreement with 
the Company (the "Agreement") executed in their behalf by 
BRAC effective July 1, 1956, and amended from time to time. 
BRAC was not named as a defendant in the plaintiff's orig
inal complaint, filed January 2, 1969, and plaintiff's 
motion to join BRAC as a party defendant, filed July 2,
1971, was denied by this Court because of the imminence
of trial.

(d) Plaintiff Henry H. Bradley (" Bradley" ) , a 
Negro, was hired by the Company March 7, 1925, and from 
November 1, 1934, until his retirement effective August 1, 
1969, was employed in the central mail room of the Houston

-3- -  //^ 6 2 2



general office building in the position of Mail Room Porter. 
Bradley and others employed in the mail room, like certain 
other employees within the Company's executive department, 
were not covered by BRAC agreements and were not represented 
by any labor organization until approximately April 1, 1954, 
when the Company and BRAC agreed to add such employees to 
the bargaining unit represented by BRAC. In accordance with 
the then current Company-BRAC agreement, which required 
union membership as a condition of employment, Bradley be
came a member of BRAC Local 1534 shortly after April, 1954. 
At that time Local 1534 was all Negro. On April 1, 1966, 
Local 1534 was merged into defendant Local 589 (which prior 
to that time had been all white); and from April 1, 1966, 
until his retirement Bradley was a member of Local 589.

2. There are four positions entitled "Mail Room 
Porter" in the central mail room. As of November 1, 1970, 
three of these positions paid $607.21 per month; the fourth, 
occupied by Bradley from August, 1944, until his retirement, 
paid $648.98. These rates typify the differential between 
Bradley's rate and that of the other three positions which

-4-
L



has existed since a number of years prior to August, 1944. 
Bradley contends he became "head" of the mail room in 
August, 1944, when his predecessor retired. The Company 
denies that Bradley had any such title or that he had any 
substantial supervisory authority or responsibility, but 
does not dispute the fact that Bradley was in effect the 
lead employee in the mail room.

3. A substantial volume of incoming and outgoing 
mail is handled each day by the Mail Room Porters. Sacks 
or bundles of United States and Company mail are carried 
in and out of the mail room and hauled by truck between the 
Company's office, the United States Post Office and Company 
train and truck freight stations. In the mail room mail is 
sorted and distributed to pigeonholes for delivery to various 
departments and individuals within the Company, mail is 
weighed and necessary postage is affixed, certified and 
registered mail is received and posted, and envelopes are 
sometimes mechanically addressed by use of an "addressograph" 
machine. By reason of his seniority, Bradley did not drive 
the truck and haul mail between the office and other points



mentioned above, but he participated in all the other 
activities in the mail room, spending his time in weigh
ing and sorting mail at the table in the center of the 
room and in performing any other work which was necessary.

4. Bradley was expected to take the lead among 
the other mail room employees, to coordinate their and his 
daily mail handling activities and to assist new employees 
in learning the jobs. Bradley testified that under his 
former supervisor, who retired in 1958, Bradley in some 
instances interviewed and made recommendations regarding 
prospective mail room employees and occasionally acted as 
an intermediary with the supervisor when other Mail Room 
Porters needed time off. It is clear, however, that under 
A. J. Moore, Bradley's supervisor since 1958, Bradley neither 
possessed nor exercised any substantial degree of supervisory 
authority, as distinguished from the leadership normally ex
ercised by a senior, experienced employee occupying a lead 
position. Moore, a supervisor and as such exempted from 
the coverage of the BRAC agreement, devoted a substantial 
part of his attention to operation of the mail room and set

-6 - L' • ■>r-O <.,)



the procedures followed there. Bradley operated within 
the procedures established by Moore and exercised little, 
if any, independent discretion and judgment, as distinguished 
from expert knowledge and proficiency. Since April of 1954 
positions in the mail room have been filled on the basis of 
seniority in accordance with the bidding procedure of the 
Agreement, and Bradley played no part in the selection of 
new mail room employees. Neither has he played any part 
in handling the grievances of other employees or in arrang
ing for their time off from work, at least since Moore has 
been his supervisor. Although Bradley's job, like those of 
the other Mail Room Porters, was undoubtedly demanding at 
times and always of importance to the Company's operations, 
it was largely routine and repetitive in nature.

5. Plaintiff contends in substance that his job 
duties were not those of a "porter" and that he should have 
been given a different job title, such as "Mail Clerk", and 
paid a higher salary. He contends this was the result of 
racial discrimination. There is no evidence to support such 
a contention. Under the BRAC agreement there are literally

-7- — /



hundreds of positions and job titles, with a multitude of 
different salary levels, some higher and some lower than 
that of Bradley's former position. There is no evidence 
that Bradley was locked into his position, or prevented 
from seeking a higher one, by reason of race. Bradley 
undertook in his testimony to equate his work as a "mail 
porter" with the position of "clerk" in various other com 
pany departments, as, for example, accounting department 
and rate department. The evidence is undisputed that a 
clerk in the accounting department was required to be 
familiar with various accounting practices and procedures 
the operation of business and accounting machines, etc.
It likewise was undisputed that a clerk in the rate de
partment was required to be familiar with the railroad 
freight rates. Bradley was not shown to have competence 
in either of these fields. In any event, I find that 
neither the salary nor title of Bradley's position was 
fixed on the basis of the race of Bradley or any of its 
other occupants.

-8 - 6 t



6. Plaintiff also contends, apparently in the 
alternative, that he was discouraged from bidding into 
higher paying jobs by the existence of an allegedly racially 
discriminatory seniority system. I find that during all 
times material to this action Bradley had the opportunity 
to bid to higher paid jobs, but refrained from doing so for 
reasons of his own, and not out of any belief or fear that 
if he had bid he would have been penalized under the senior
ity system in effect during his employment. This finding is 
based on, inter alia, the following circumstances:

(a) Until July 1, 1971, all employees covered 
by the Agreement held seniority in seniority "groups", 
numbered 1, 2 and 3. Positions included in Group 1 were 
primarily clerical in nature, and most but not all such 
positions paid higher salaries than positions in Group 2, 
which were generally less skilled in nature and involved 
relatively little clerical work as defined by the Agreement. 
Historically, approximately half of the employees in Group 2 
have been white and half Negro, and many of the white and 
Negro employees in Group 1 prior to July 1, 1971, were

-9- 6 0 8



originally employed in Group 2 and later bid to Group 1. 
Group 3 included essentially laborer positions. Bradley's 
position in the mail room was placed in Group 2 when it 
was brought under the Agreement in 1954. Bradley contends 
his position would have been included in Group 1 but for 
his race and that of other Negro Mail Room Porters, but I 
find no evidence to support that contention. Bradley's 
position paid substantially as much if not more than a 
number of Group 1 positions, and his position was estab
lished in accordance with the applicable labor agreement 
and on the basis of its job content. Race was not a factor

(b) In 1963 the Company and BRAC made compre
hensive agreements which permitted the Company certain 
flexibility in combining, revising and eliminating cler
ical positions; such agreements also guaranteed certain 
categories of employees, including Bradley, continued em
ployment without reduction of rate until retirement. Effec 
tive July 1, 1971, Groups 1, 2 and 3 were merged and all 
employees were placed on one seniority list for the entire 
bargaining unit. Prior to that time, however, Bradley and

-1 0 - 8



all other Group 2 employees, white and Negro, were entitled 
to bid on any vacant Group 1 position. Upon acceptance of 
such a bid, the employee began accumulating Group 1 senior
ity; while assigned to Group 1 positions, he continued to 
hold and accumulate seniority in Group 2. If such an em
ployee was demoted from a Group 1 position, he was required 
to exhaust his Group 1 seniority by displacing any junior 
employees in that Group; if unable to remain in Group 1, 
however, he was entitled to use his Group 2 seniority to 
displace any employee in any Group 2 position who held less
Group 2 seniority than his. Bradley was fully aware of such

(1 )bidding opportunities and seniority rights.

1/ Bradley's testimony might tend to show that he was mis
informed as to his seniority rights as a Group 2 employee, 
in the event he bid for a Group 1 position. I am of the 
view that such was not the case. Bradley was an intelligent 
and articulate witness. He was on cordial and friendly terms 
with his own superiors in the company and with the Union rep
resentatives. I am convinced he was fully aware of his senior 
ity rights, and elected to remain in his Group 2 position in 
the mail room. In the event he had bid for a Group 1 position 
and thereafter had been bumped, I am of the view that he recog 
nized that he could have reverted to his Group 2 seniority, 
and been assigned to a Group 2 position with the Company at 
no reduction in compensation, but that he might not have re
turned to his position as lead man in the mail room. As he 
stated, with only two or three years to go to retirement, he 
elected to stay where he was.

-1 1 -
8 3 0



(c) On December 29, 1965, and effective
January 1, 1966, the Company and BRAC agreed that em
ployees who prior to January 1, 1966, had secured senior
ity dates in more than one group, would continue to hold 
such dates. Employees who prior to January 1, 1966, did 
not have seniority dates in all three groups were assigned 
a seniority date of January 1, 1966, in each group in which 
they did not have seniority dates. Thus, Bradley was given 
a seniority date of January 1, 1966, in Groups 1 and 3, 
where he had previously had none. Conversely, each em
ployee in Group 1 who had no earlier date in Group 2 was 
given a seniority date in Group 2 of January 1, 1966.
Bradley knew or should have known of such change in his 
seniority status, which was reflected in seniority lists 
posted in the Company's offices and was announced and dis
cussed in at least one meeting of members of the Local.

(d) On June 7, 1967, Bradley submitted a bid 
for the position of Timekeeper, a higher paid Group 1 job. 
However, on June 8, 1967, before his bid was acted upon, 
Bradley withdrew it. This is the only job bid which Bradley

-1 2 -



ever submitted, and his withdrawal was entirely voluntary. 
Approximately 27 Negro employees have bid from Group 2 
and 3 positions to Group 1 positions, including eight who 
once held the position of Mail Room Porter in the central 
mail room. The majority of such employees were junior to 
Bradley in Group 2 seniority, and in 1966 and thereafter 
Bradley was one of the most senior employees in all of 
Group 2 and the most senior by far of the Mail Room Porters. 
Bradley knew or should have known that if he had bid into a 
Group 1 job he would have been guaranteed continued employ
ment by the Company at not less than his former Mail Room 
Porter rate by virtue of the Company-BRAC Agreements and/or 
his retained and accumulated Group 2 seniority. Although 
Bradley might have preferred to have Group 1 seniority equal 
to his total Company service in the mail room, he was not at 
any material time prevented from bidding to higher paid 
Group 1 jobs by any aspect of the seniority system nor by 
any action on the part of the Company, Local or BRAC, and 
the Company has successfully engaged in efforts to increase

-13- f* n o



the number of Negroes employed in Group 1 positions
through promotions from Groups 2 and 3, as well as re-

2cruitment of new employees.

| 7. Beginning June 9, 1967, Bradley endeavored
I in effect, primarily through correspondence with various 
I union officials, to have his Group 1 seniority dated back 
/ to his initial employment in the mail room, to have his 
I position in the mail room reclassified and given a title 
I other than ’Porter" and to receive greater compensation 

in his mail room position. Bradley’s letters were dis
cussed at membership meetings and referred ultimately to 
proper officials of BRAG for handling. In due course 
Bradley was advised by letter dated January 23, 1963, from 
BRAC General Chairman Pat J. Gibson, in substance that 
under applicable agreements his seniority date, job classif
ication and rate of pay were proper. This position was con
firmed by letter dated February 13, 1968, from BRAC Inter
national President C. L. Dennis.

2/ It is interesting to note that the witness Renfro Moody, 
a Negro and a mail porter with less seniority than the plain
tiff, in 1967 bid for and received a Group 1 job which he has 
held continuously since that date. This is precisely what 
plaintiff contends he was unable to do, by reason of the 
allegedly racially biased seniority system.

-14-
4 S i S 3 3



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. During plaintiff's employment by the Company 
he was an "employee", the Company was an "employer" and 
the Local was a "labor organization" as those terms are 
defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the 
"Act"), 78 Stat. 241.

2. Defendants did not violate the Act by main
taining the job title or rates of pay applicable to plain
tiff's position as Mail Room Porter.

3. The question whether the seniority system 
in effect prior to July 1, 1971, was unlawful under the 
Act is moot by virtue of the modification of such system 
effective July 1, 1971, and by virtue of the fact that 
Bradley never sought and was never denied an opportunity 
for promotion on grounds of the seniority system. In any 
event, such seniority system affected both white and Negro 
employees in the same manner and has not been shown to 
have been maintained in violation of the Act.

-15- 631
■f 10



4. The plaintiff should take nothing against 
the defendants and is not entitled to an award of back 
wages or any other relief for which he prays.

5. Costs of this action shall be taxed against
the plaintiff, and judgment shall be entered in accordance
with the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

7i C
Entered at Houston, Texas, this _* *- day of

September, 1971.

United States District Judge

-16- y- // 635



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION

- r u i DISTRICT OF 7EX/>: F ( L E D
Ut; 131^0

HENRY BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,

VS.

§
§
§
§

V RAILLY THCM 

HV XB,TV% /
CLERt

CIVIL ACTION NO. 68-H-1079
§SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY,INC., AND BROTHERHOOD OF §

RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,§ 
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, 
LOCAL 589, §

Defendants. §

J U D G M E N T

The above-styled and numbered cause came on for 
trial on August 18, 1971, before the Court without a jury, 
and the parties having appeared by their respective counsel 
and the issues having been duly tried, and the Court having 
filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the 
15th day of September, 1971, directing judgment as herein
after provided, it is,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the Plaintiff Henry Bradley take nothing 

against the Defendant Southern Pacific Company or Defendant 
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight 
Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Local 589.

2. That Defendants have and recover from the 
Plaintiff their costs in the action, and

3. That this action be and it is hereby dismissed 
on the merits.

ENTERED at Houston, Texas, this |^/-day of October,
1971.

/ V  <?.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE f



APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Vi W. Burch, Jr. C 
3000 One Shell Plaza 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorney for Defendant Southern Pacific

/James L / Highs?
631 Tower Building 
Washington, D.C. 20004

Company

Attorney for Defendant Brotherhood of Railway, 
Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, 
Express and Station Employees, Local 589

-' Mrs. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
1834 Southmore Boulevard 
Houston, Texas 77002

Attorney for Plaintiff Henry Bradley

-2-
7  o ' 6 3 7



**#

t

IN T H E  U N IT E D  S T A T E S  D IS T R IC T  C O U R T
CLERK, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

F O R  T H E  S O U T H E R N  D IS T R IC T  OtQUfllStMDISTRICT OE TEXAS
f i l e d

H O U STO N  DIVISION NOV 1 o 1971
H EN R Y  B R A D L E Y ,

vs.
P la in t i f f ,

S O U T H E R N  P A C IF IC  C O M P A N Y , IN C .
A ND  B R O T H E R H O O D  O F  R A IL W A Y ,
A IR L IN E  A ND  S T E A M S H IP  C L E R K S ,
F R E I  G H T  H A N D L E R S ,  E X P R E S S  A ND  
S T A T IO N  E M P L O Y E E S ,  L O C A L  589,

D e fe n d a n t s .

N O T IC E  O F  A P P E A L

V. BAILEY THOMAS. CLERK

C . A .  N o . 6 8 -H -1 0 7 9

N o t ic e  i s  h e r e b y  g iv e n  t h a t  P l a i n t i f f ,  H e n r y  B r a d l e y ,  h e r e b y  a p p e a l s  

to  th e  U n i te d  S t a t e s  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  f o r  th e  F i f th  C i r c u i t  f r o m  th e  f in a l  ju d g 

m e n t  d i s m i s s i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  a c t i o n  a n d  d e n y in g  a l l  o t h e r  r e l i e f ,  an d  t a x in g  c o s t s  

a g a i n s t  P l a i n t i f f ,  e n t e r e d  in  t h i s  a c t i o n  on th e  13 th  d ay  o f  O c t o b e r ,  1971.

y//c
G A B R IE L L E  K . M cD O N A L D  
1834 S o u th m o r e  B o u le v a r d ,  S u i t e  203 
H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77004 
(713) 5 2 3 -7 4 2 3

JA C K  G R E E N B E R G  
W IL L IA M  L .  ROBINSON 
10 C o lu m b u s  C i r c l e  
N ew  Y o r k ,  N ew  Y o r k  10019 
(212) 5 8 6 -8 3 9 7

P

t*

C E R T I F I C A T E  O F  S E R V IC E

T h i s  i s  to  c e r t i f y  t h a t  th e  u n d e r s i g n e d ,  c o u n s e l  f o r  P la in t i f f ,  h a s  t h i s  

d ay  of N o v e m b e r ,  1971 ,  s e r v e d  a  co p y  of th e  f o r e g o in g  N o t ic e  Of A p p e a l

u p o n  c o u n s e l  f o r  D e fe n d a n ts  b y  m a i l i n g  s a m e  b y  U n i te d  S t a t e s  m a i l  a d d r e s s e d  

a s  in d i c a t e d .

V . R .  B u r c h ,  J r . , 3000 O ne  S h e l l  P l a z a ,  H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77004 
A t t o r n e y  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  S o u th e r n  P a c i f i c  C o m p a n y

J a m e s  L .  H ig h s a w ,  J r .  ,6 3 1  T o w e r  B l d g . , W a s h in g to n ,  D . C .  20004 
C u r t i s s  B ro w n ,  500 H o u s to n  F i r s t  S a v in g s  B ld g .  , H o u s to n ,  T e x a s  77002 
A t t o r n e y s  f o r  D e fe n d a n t  B r o t h e r h o o d  of R a i l w a y ,  A i r l i n e  & S t e a m 
s h ip  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p r e s s  & S ta t io n  E m p l o y e e s ,  L o c a l  
589.

/ J J L ~ a  P, a w
GAB R I E L L E  K. McDONA L D

6  P S

m



63-11-1079 .D OCKET

cioSe£>

BEN C. CONNALLY
TITLE OF CASE

HENRY BRADLEY
V3

SOUTHER]-! PACIFIC COMPANY, INC, and
BROTHERHOOD OP RAIL'.-/AY. AIRLINE AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 539

basis o f  actio n : Civil rights - Job discrominatj.on

JURY TRIAL CLAIMED 
ON

ATTORNEYS
For Plaintiff: Qabrielie McDona!

=?-3=-Mais=S=. 183^ Southmcrc 
Houaton, Tcx-as— 7700 £ —

For Defendant: Southern pacific
V. R. Burch, Jr., -
For Brotherhood, etc., 
Brovm, Kronzee, etc.,
(Robert L. Steely) 500
Houston 1st Savings Bldg. 
For S.P. - Baker, Botts,
(V.R. Burch, Jr.,) Esperson
Bldg. Houston, 2,

DATE PLAINTIFF S ACCOUNT •RECEIVED DISBURSED DATE DEFENDANT’S ACCOUNT RECEIVED DISBURSED
•31-63 V.C.O’Brien 1 5 . 0 3

-/*> A'i
/'V3.v c.\ 0

7-TW /yho *
—■

nr)
7o <&,0-fab v5hr)

ofG O 00

ABSTRACT OF COSTS
TO WHOM DUE RECEIPTS. REMARKS. ETC.

" Hi -



& u

DATE :ngs— p r o c e e d i n g s
AMOUNT REPORTED IN EMOLUMENT RETURNS

- o '■>! £0 - ̂ -Oj Complaint filed In du. ■ 0 373 jISfP*,,-s-09 Summons for service 0 '•-•fondants issued and delivered to
U.S.Marshal

1/15/69 (JI) Order to show cav . filed, (hearing, Jan. 30, 1969 at ):30 am )
Marshal M i l  serve abc. defts.) 3 f f

1-21-69 SUMMONS RETD. & PILED 17-69) OH COMPLAINT AND DELIVERING 3it n COPY OF SHOW CAUSE OKD :
1-24-69 Summons retd & fild. : . 1/20/69 (Brotherhood) &
1/27/69 Joint Motion to conti- hearing on application f}or preliminai ic tic
2/5/69 Deft. Southern Pacific ,'s Answer. filed. L->
2-17-69 Motions of the defend Brotherhood of railway, airline and 7

steamship clerks, fre: t handles, express and station employe es
local 589, to dismiss. ' in the alternative, for summary
judgment, filed in du, ate (Not on % r^D)

3-11-69 Application for preli: .••y hearing filed In duplicate ? s
(Moves the court to h: • d determine motions. M/D 4-21-69)

3-21-69 Supplement and amendm. .0 motions of the defendant Brotherhood y
of Railway, Airling a: f.-amship Clerk, Freight Handlers, Exp ress
and Station Emploes Lc : 589, to dismiss, or in the alternati ve,
for summary judgment, ..ad in du/plicate V-*f

3-21-69 Certificate of service "led in duplicate /!>
_(lr_2r- 69 .. Defts 1 INTERROGATOR!;- PItf., filed.___________ //
4-9-69 Motion to remove motic.. om calendar of bhe court filed in du /7-
4-22-69 Motion to extend time answer or object to interrogatories 3-? 6 /5

filed in duolicate
4-22-69: (Jl) Order exteldirng :..e to answer or object to interrogate ?ies /V

filed & entered (Time ended to 6-19-69)
4-22-69 Parties notified purs to Rule 77(d) FRCP
6/19/69 Plf.'s Answer to Intel: •cries, filed. 1*
1-1-70 Transferred to Judge r 11y 's docket this date

'^-/2-70 Motion to Substitute -'or Plrintiff. Gabrielle McDonald it-
in lieu of Vincent 'jn. (Aroroved by Flt.f.) fiic-d. ^¥•9

1-16-70 (BCC) ORDER allowin' .! tut ion of counsel for Pltf. . sisne d / 7
and filed. (c McDonald now attv. for Pltf.l f  3 V>
certified core, ’• 1* ma11 cd to all attorneys.3-3-1-70 Motion to approve chai counsel filed in duplicate *3 3 3

_i i_: ;... 1!. ror t.<- dad Ccmnlcint, filed. M/D : -r.Q-vr■ /f

• n ■»-



Sheet No. 2
CIVILDOCKET 68-H-1079 HENRY BRADLEY VS SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.,INC.. ET AL

H - 2 0 -7 0

V  2 V 7 0

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

Answer of Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
Steamship Clerk, Freight Handles, Express and
Station Employees, Local 589. in opposition to
motion of plaintiff to file flr3t amended comaplain
filed in duplicate
Plf.'s Memorandum of Law. filed.

V2V70V2"/70
5/22/70

deft.. Southern Pacific's Answer in cpposition
Deft. Southern Pacific Co.,’s response in oppos

CLERK’S FEES
DEFENDANT

'-.O PI

Memorandum of law filed.
Reply of of Railway, fllrlinp

7/8/70

8 / 7 / 7 P
8 / 7 / 7 0

8-10-70

9-14-70

-  ---------------------------------------------------- --- - . . WWW.----A -L- J- y IClerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station to Plctxntiff^s Coirtrerrtdrcms iComplaint fi1ed .________
Employ

1 7 5

-lftcc)— Memorandum d_gmd,ng Motion t.o fi 1 p arnsni
in duplicate. Copies arailed to counsel,

j id.. Co. npd

_Notice of Appeal filed in dup.
_Co_st Bond on Notice of Appeal, filed in dup
Certified copy of Notice of Appeal and of Clerl
mailed to U.S.Court of Appeals.

Record on Appeal mailed to U.S.Court of Appeals
12-10-70 Certified copy of Fifth Circuit's ORDER DXSMISi SING

rec'd & filed.
12-10-70 Record on Appeal returned from Ct. of Appeals

1/13/71
1/2S/71

Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Deft. Southern Pacific Co.
Motion to Extend Time to Anser and/or Object to

2/V71
Notice of Hearing Motion. M/D 2/1/71

2/22/71
tl

5-4-71
5-4-71
5-10-71

-X̂ CC)— Order_grantlng motion for gf
Answer Interrogatories filed & entered Parties
Deft. Southern Pacific's Objections to Interrorjatorj

" ' " Ansv/cro to Interrogator)
MOTION for Continuance by "Local", filed.
NOTICE of Placing Motion on Motion Calendar, filed
ANSV.ER of Deft. "Local" filed after obtaining

5-13-71
court to waive its Motion to Dismiss filed

7- 6-71
Pltf’s Request for Continuance, filed.

7-14-71

Plaintiff's Motion to Join The Brotherhood of 1 :wy. ,vir]ine---—— — ■ ■■ ——-------- —---------- ------- v  ' Tv y  ■  a *X  i.

& Steamship Clerks, etc. as a Party Deft.,fil<id (mJ'D:
from(BCC) "At the request of counsel the matter is Advanced

to August TTrand the case will Te~~tme'/sf that time. Pltf’s motion to ioin a new fleft £t fhis

tier

's Di< >cke

Agreed. Deft
.time
not

leav i
17- 39

f.
to

nd

Mot
Plf.

on

AMOUNT REPORTED IN EMOLUMENT RETURNS

*5T
+ <>t

APP2AL,

Intc rro

La
fie
es.
fil

SteanahJLoca]
Amer

■ini

t Ent

;ator i es
.Pad

d.
filedcd.

M/D 5-6-71
open

5?
12

rie

fic

i 3 .

9,

*7?

U77

-2ik.

29

5C

"late date Is denied." Parties nttd 7-15-11 map

7/i"/7:

b*l

y / 7

> 7 f

34
35

37

3 8



FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

7-14-71 ANSWER of Deft.Local 589 of the B.of Railway S

7-14-71
7-14-71

8-10-71
8-18-71

and of said Brotherhood Opposing Motion of Pltf
Complaint to join the Brotherhood as a Party

AFFIDAVIT of James L. Highsaw.Jr. as attorney for
MEMORANDUM of Points & Authorities in Support

Deft. Local 589, etc, to Motion of Pltf. to
DEPOSITION of Otto John KOCH, filed.
(BCC) CASE TO TRIAL by Court: Appearances: C
McDonald for Pltf.; Regan Burch & Richard Br
Pacific Company; James L. Highsaw & Curtis B
Union 589 Brotherhood, etc. Damages & attorneys

CLERK'S FEES

Airline Clerks

Deft
Brotherhood,

of Oppos
Amend, f

abri< lie
ann tor Southern
rown

taken up later. RULE INVOKED — witnesses sworn.
begun 10:00 am; Pltf rests 4:20 pm. Souther

8-19-71

8-26-71

S-30-71 
S-30-71

8-31-71

8-31-71
73/71

guests leave to dictate Motion to Dismiss. Court
hear defts' case first. Local Union 589 joins Mot
Defense evidence begun. Recess 5:30 pm until

(BCC) SECOND DAY TRIAL to Court: Evidence re
S.P. reiterates Motion to Dismiss. Parties
findings & conclusions within one week. Cou
briefs. Court adjourned 3:45 pm.

k^tter from S.P, atty confirming conversation
time to 8/30/71 for filing findings & conclus

Pltf's Proposed Findings of Fact, filed.
Pltf's Proposed Conclusions of Law, filed.

n Pacific Co.

9: 3C
sumec
to srbmi
rt will

v/clerk

3-30-71 MEMORANDUM of Plaintiff, filed.
Deft Southern Pacific Transportation Company's
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, received

MEMORANDUM in Support of Deft. Southern Pao-ifi c Co

9/15/71
Southern Pacific's response to Memo of Plf. Of fact ~ ~

takes nothing, costs taxed against Plaintiff,

0---~7LJBCC) JUDGMENT, signed & filed. Pltf. Henry Eradlc;y take

OF LAW signed ft f < 1 edf . £Lai
be entered in accordance with Findings & conclusions7 pa r s—n otrf re d-by- -o/e-,— rlo) “

Nothing against the deft Southern Pacific Con
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship C
Handlers, Exc>rcss & Station Employees, Local

ction: ehave & recover from Pltf their costs in the a
action dismissed on the merits.
Parties notified by certified copy of Judgment. (map)

proriose

pany
lerk
589.

to Amend the

DEFENDANT

f ileid

ition
iled.

& Ma:

of

rk

AMOUNT REPORTED IN EMOLUMENT RETURNS

39
fid 4) >-?/

41 5+!
42

for Loca
fees to be

Evidence

wishes to
ion to D
am 8-19

exten

Jude inert to

or

(2)

conclude
su

entertai

-71

SHtes

filed.

n t i  £1

ding

iss.

d.
ted

43
44 n s

deft
, Freigh

Deft
nd (')

45

46
S'S ' -/
bo 7

47-d £/X

48
hi?

49
V / i cu



$ f ' k .

CIVIL DOCKET MO. 68-H-1079 - H .BRADLEY v SOUTHERN PACIFIC!,
DATE FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS CLEr :I' -3 AMOUNT REPORTED IN' EMOLUMENT RETURNSPLAINTIFF CMOANT

11-10-73 Plff's Notice of Appeal, filed. j h?T
11-10-71 Appeal Bond, filed. 1
12-8-71 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, filed (2 wl.) /

j
i
i

1
j

j
• J

|
1

j

j
i
!I
i
i

i!
1!
itiii
1
j

• j
j

i
-------

i». c. no



CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS )

I* V. BAILEY THOMAS, Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in 

the Fifth Circuit and District aforesaid, do hereby 

certify the foregoing to be the ORIGINAL PAPERS of the 

record and all proceedings had in Cause No. 68-H-1079

on the Civil_____  Docket of this Court at Houston
entitled:

HENRY BRADLEY 
VS

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, ET. AL.,

as the same now appears on file and of record in my office.

TO CERTIFY WHICH, witness my hand and the Seal of

said Court at _____ Houston_______

in said District, this the aafr/'T -

day of December_______ , 19 71

V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK

(Seal) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

By— 'f. f a n ?
W. Paul HarrVa, Deputy

LZ * O



CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS )

I, V. BAILEY THOMAS. Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in 

the Fifth Circuit and District aforesaid, do hereby 

certify the foregoing to be the ORIGINAL PAPERS of the 

record and all proceedings had in Cause No. 68-H-1079

on the civil_____  Docket of this Court at Houston
entitled:

HENRY BRADLEY 
VS

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, ET. AL.,

as the same now appears on file and of record in my office. 

TO CERTIFY WHICH, witness my hand and the Seal of

said Court at Houston_______

m  said District, this the 3gh !y ~

day of December_______, 19 71

(Seal)
V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

W. Paul Harris, Deputy

/* 4 / )O t/*v
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Bradley v. Southern Pacific Company, Inc. Appellant's Appendix

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
