Pullman Standard Incorporated v. Swint Joint Appendix
Public Court Documents
June 5, 1974 - August 11, 1978
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Pullman Standard Incorporated v. Swint Joint Appendix, 1974. 8c24a4ab-c19a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2e92580d-5e07-445c-b440-9d8ec96d3598/pullman-standard-incorporated-v-swint-joint-appendix. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
^aX sL> CL̂ u - |
Nos. 80-1190 and 80-1193
In The
(ilrnirt of % Ulntteih Zlatas
October Term, 1980
Pullman-Standard, a Division of Pullman, Incorporated,
Petitioner,
v.
Louis Swint and Willie Johnson,
Respondents.
United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL-CIO and
Local 1466, United Steelworkers of A merica,
AFL-CIO,
Petitioners,
v.
Louis Swint and Willie Johnson,
Respondents.
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
For The Fifth Circuit
JOINT APPENDIX
[Counsel listed on inside cover]
PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 15, 1981
CERTIORARI GRANTED ON APRIL 20, 1981
60
Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Judith Reed
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
(212) 586-8397
Elaine R. Jones
Counsel of Record
Barry L. Goldstein
Suite 940
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 638-3278
Oscar W. Adams, III
2121 Eighth Avenue, North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Counsel for Respondents
Samuel H. Burr
C. V. Stelzenmuller
Thomas, Taliaferro, F orman,
Burr & Murray
1600 Bank For Savings Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
(205) 251-3000
F. B. Snyder
200 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Counsel for Petitioner
Pullman-Standard
Michael H. Gottesman
Counsel of Record
Robert M. Weinberg
Julia Penny Clark
David M. Silberman
Bredhoff, Gottesman, Cohen,
Chanin , Weinberg &
Petramalo
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 833-9340
Bernard Kleiman
General Counsel
United Steelworkers of
A merica, AFL-CIO
1 East Wacker Drive
Suite 1910
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Carl B. F rankel
Associate General Counsel
United Steelworkers of
A merica, AFL-CIO
Five Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Jerome A. Cooper
Cooper, Mitch & Crawford
409 N. 21st Street, Suite 201
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Laurence J. Gold
815 - 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel For Petitioners,
United Steelworkers of America,,
AFL-CIO And Local 1466,
United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Docket Entries ............... ............... .................................... 1
Amended Complaint .................................... ...... ............. 14
Second Amended Complaint ........................ ..... .......... . 17
Answer of Defendant International Association of
Machinists ......................................... ..... ..... ................. 26
Pre-Trial Order dated June 5, 1974 ......... .... ...... ......... 28
Transcript of 1974 Trial ......... ....... ........... ................. . 31
Exhibits Introduced at 1974 T rial.............................. . 65
Transcript of 1978 Trial ...... ................. ......... ..... ....... . 91
Exhibits Introduced at 1978 Trial_______________ ___ 103
Depositions Introduced at 1978 T rial________________ 337
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative
Facts, with attachments ......... ....... ........................... . 346
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CA 71-955
Jury demand date:
Denied by Oral Order 7/8/74
Re-open 9-24-76
10-11-77
BASIS: Title VII
Sam C. Pointer, Jr., Judge
Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,
Clyde Humphrey,
Intervenorvs.
Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel
workers of A merica Local 1466; and United Steel
workers of A merica, APL-CIO, International As
sociation of Machinists
CIVIL DOCKET
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1971
Oct. 19 Complaint filed
19 Summons and complaint issued—del. to U.S.
Marshal for service
Nov. 5 Motion of defendants United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO and Local 1466, United Steel
workers of America, to dismiss the complaint
filed—copy served by counsel 11/23/71 Over
ruled—30 days to answer (Pointer)
2
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1971
5 Summons and complaint returned executed on
10-21-71 on Pullman-Standard, on 10-28-71 on
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and
on 11-1-71 on United Steelworkers of America
Local 1466 and filed
9 Motion of defendant Pullman-Standard to dismiss
the complaint filed— copy served by counsel
11/23/71 Overruled (Pointer) cm
Dec. 23 Answer of defendants, United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO and Local 1466, United Steel
workers of America, to the complaint filed—
copy served by counsel
30 Answer of defendant, Pullman-Standard, a Divi
sion of Pullman, Inc., a corp. to the complaint
filed—copies served by counsel
1972
Jan. 26 Interrogatories by plaintiffs propounded to de
fendants filed—copy served by counsel on United
Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and AFL-
CIO
May 30 Interrogatories of plaintiffs propounded to defend
ants filed—copy served by counsel on United
Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and United
Steel Workers of America AFL-CIO and
Pullman-Standard
July 6 Order on PRETRIAL conference held July 5, 1972,
dated July 6, 1972, filed and entered (Pointer)
cm
10 Amendment by defendant, Pullman-Standard, to
answer filed— copies served by counsel
8
DATE
1973
Jan. 9
9
Jul 6
6
1974
Mar 11
12
May 3
30
31
31
PROCEEDINGS
Objections by defendant Pullman-Standard, a Di
vision of Pullman incorporated, a Corp. to inter
rogatories filed— copies served by counsel
Answers of defendant Pullman-Standard to in-
terogatories filed— exhibits attached— copies
served by counsel
Depositions (4) of William H. Lee, Jr., Billie J.
Carroll, Louis Stubbs and Harry E. DeBrow
taken on behalf of plaintiffs—filed
Depositions (4) of James D. Moss, Arthur S.
Lightfoot, William Joseph Harris and Harry P.
Crane, Jr. taken on behalf of plaintiffs—filed
Second interrogatories of plaintiff propounded to
defendant company, filed— cs
Notice that plaintiffs have associated Ms. Marilyn
Holified and Jack Greenberg of 10 Columbus
Circle, New York, New York 1009, as counsel
of record for plaintiffs, filed— cs
Answers of defendant, Pullman-Standard, a Di
vision of Pullman, Incorporated, by Fred W.
McCool, to second interrogatories propounded
by plaintiffs, filed—cs
Request by pltffs for production of documents by
deft, filed—cs
Supplemental request by pltffs for production of
documents by deft Pullman-Standard, filed— cs
Motion of plffs to compel answers by plffs to inter
rogatories, filed—cs
4
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1974
Jun 5 Order dated June 4, 1974 on PRETRIAL CON
FERENCE held same date that the prerequisites
of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) (2) are satisfied and
that this action may hereafter be maintained on
behalf of all black persons who are nor or have
within one year prior to filing of any charges
under Title VII been employed by defendant
Company or maintenance employees represented
by the United Steelworkers; and granting leave
to add as additional party defendant, Inter
national Association of Machinists; and grant
ing leave for the intervention as a party plaintiff
of an employee by the name of Humphrey—
filed and entered (Pointer) cm
Jun 5 Notices (2) that deft will take the deposition of
Clyde Humphrey at 9 :00 a,m. and Louis Swint
at 1 :00 p.m., June 18, 1974, filed—cs
12 Notice that plffs will take the deposition of deft
company’s plant manager at 10:00 a.m., June
17, 1974, filed— cs
20 Amended complaint, filed
20 Summons and complaint as amended issued—del
to USM
25 Deposition of Louis Swint taken on behalf of deft
Pullman-Standard—filed
Deposition of William Clyde Horton taken on be
half of plffs—filed
28 Motion of deft Pullman-Standard to strike por
tions of amended complaint, filed— cs 7/8/74—
Denied, paragraphs 1 & 3 being unnecessary &
paragraph 2 denied on the merits (Pointer) cm
28 Response of deft employer to request and suppler-
mental request for production of documents,
filed—cs
1974
28
28
Jul 1
1
8
8
9
9
10
DATE
11
PROCEEDINGS
Answer of deft Pullman-Standard to amended
complaint, with jury demand thereon on issue
of amount of recovery, filed— cs
Supplemental answers of deft Pullman-Standard
to first set of interrogatories filed— cs
List of witnesses of deft, United Steelworkers of
America & Local 1466, filed—cs
List of witnesses and documents which deft
Pullman-Standard anticipates it may use at
trial, filed— cs
Further supplemental answers of deft employer to
first set of interrogatories filed— cs
On trial before the Hon. Sam C. Pointer, Jr.
Answers (2) of defts to plffs’ amended com
plaint filed. Depositions (3) of Clyde, Hum
phrey, Willie James Johnson and James R. Hud
son filed. Oral order denying jury demand en
tered. Plffs’ motion to compel declared moot.
Plffs’ testimony. Daily adjournment.
Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment.
Summons & amended complaint returned, exe
cuted on 6/25/74 on International Association
of Machinist and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO
and filed
Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment.
Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Defts’
offer of deposition plus exhibits attached there
to, of Clyde Humphrey received by the Court.
Daily adjournment.
PE
r4
12
15
16
17
18
7
8
9
12
13
6
PROCEEDINGS
Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Defts’
offer of deposition of Louis Swint received by
the Court. Plffs’ rest. Defts’ oral motions for
involuntary dismissal as to individual cases en
tered. Arguments by counsel. Plffs’ second
amendment to complaint filed. Service accepted
on behalf of Local 372 by T. W. Horn. Daily
adjournment.
Trial resumed. Oral order granting deft union’s
oral motion, and denying deft company’s oral
motion for involuntary dismissal of individual
claims of Swint and Humphrey, entered. SCP.
Defts’ testimony. Daily adjournment.
Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment.
Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment.
Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment until Aug. 7, 1974, at 9 :00 a.m.
Trial resumed—defendants’ testimony resumed—
daily adjournment—
Trial resumed—defendants’ testimony resumed—
daily adjournment—
Trial resumed— oral motion by plaintiffs to limit
defendants’ Exh. 257 and 258—motion granted
—defendants’ testimony resumed—daily ad
journment—
Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed. Daily
adjournment.
Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed and com
pleted. Union testimony begins. Daily adjourn
ment.
7
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1974
14 Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed. Oral
motion by plffs to limit deft’s exhibit 351. Mo
tion granted Daily adjournment.
15 Trial resumed. Defense rested. Plffs’ rebuttal testi
mony. Testimony concluded. Daily adjournment.
16 Trial resumed. Final arguments heard. Case taken
under submission.
Aug 16 Clerk’s Court Minutes that this case is taken under
submission. Written order to be entered by the
Court—filed and entered—cm
Sept 13 Memorandum of Opinion filed and entered (Point
er) cm
13 Judgment in accordance with the findings and
conclusions contained in the Memorandum of
Opinion filed concurrently herewith that: 1. The
Memorandum of Agreement of May, 1972 be
tween the Department of Labor and Pullman-
Standard is declared to be binding upon the
union defendants; but eligibility under the
agreement for transfers from the Janitors,
Truck and Die & Tool (CIO) departments and
for transfers to the Plant Protection, Inspec
tion, and Air Brake & Pipe Shop departments
shall be modified to include certain classes of
employees as more fully specified in the Memo
randum of Opinion. Liability, if any, for back
pay in favor of persons benefited by such change
in eligibility respecting transfers from the Jani
tors, Truck, and Die & Tool departments is
severed for subsequent proceedings, as may be
necessary, in accordance with procedures speci
fied in the Memorandum of Opinion; but there
is no just reason for delay as to the other issues
in the case and entry of final judgment as to all
8
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1974
such other issues is expressly directed. 2. In
all other respects the claims of plaintiffs and of
the plaintiff class are denied and the action, dis
missed with prejudice. 3. Each party to bear its
own costs—filed and entered (Pointer) copies
del to attys
16 Notice of appeal by plff from final order of U.S.
District Court on September 13, 1974, filed—
certified copies mailed
16 Bond for Costs on Appeal ($250.00) filed
23 Order pursuant to Rule 11(d) extending the time
within which the record on appeal may be filed
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit of New Orleans 50 days from the 26th
day of October, 1974—filed and entered (Point
er) cm
Dec 9 Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on July 8, 1974, filed
(6 vols.)
13 Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on July 8, 1974, filed
vols 7 and 8)
13 Certified record on appeal mailed to Clerk, USCA
(7 boxes and one chart cylinder) copies of trans
mittal letter, docket entries & exhibit list mailed
attys
1976
Sept. 16 Cost Bill ($5,739.55)—filed by attys. for pltfs,
21 Motion of deft., Pullman-Standard To Defer Con
sideration of Costs—filed—es del. SCP
9
, DATE PROCEEDINGS
1976
24 Certified copy of judgment from 5th Cir. issued
as & for the mandate, opinion attached—filed
(affirmed in part, vacated & remanded in part;
defts.—appellees to pay costs on appeal) Cole
man, Clark & Gee
21 Exhibits (4 boxes) received from 5th Cir.—seem
to be missing exhibits
Oct. 26 Order (Cert, copy) from 5th Cir. on motion of
appellee, Pullman-Standard recalling 9/21/76
order & amending to provide that % of the costs
incurred by pltfs.-appellants shall be taxed to
defts.-appellees and )4 to pltfs.-appellants; re
mainder of each party’s costs shall be borne by
the party incurring same; except as recited
above, the motion of appellee is denied—filed
(Clark)
Nov. 9 Copy of Cost Bill ($7,348.40) from 5th Cir.—filed
lrc
1977
Jan. 13 Order that costs of plaintiffs on appeal ($5,686.45)
are taxed 3/8 against the company defendant
and 3/8 against the union defendant, briefs
be filed simultaneously by all parties prior to
2-1-77 as to remaining issues discussed on
12-7-76 and that a hearing is set at 9 AM on
2-22-77 for taking additional evidence as to
appointments to supervisory positions and sta
tistical information, filed and entered. SCP—
cm—add.
Feb. 10 Notice of pltfs. of Taking Deposition of Dr. Albert
Wolfe on 2/16/77 in B’ham.—filed—cs Ire
VACATED, see 2/17/77 entry
10
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1977
17 Motion of Pullman Standard To Vacate Notice of
Taking Deposition of Dr. Albert E. Wolfe—
filed-cs GRANTED, 2/16/77 w /o objection by
pltf.— SCP—cm lrc
22 Hearing on remaining issues as to Supervisory
positions and statistical information before the
Hon. Sam. C. Pointer, Jr. Plaintiffs’ agreements
and job descriptions offered and received by the
court. Defendant Company’s testimony. De
fendant company rest. No union testimony.
Plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony. Daily adjourn
ment. (JoeMarotta, Reptr.) add
23 Hearing resumed. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony
resumed. Plaintiffs rest. Evidence taken under
advisement. (John Weaver, Reptr.) add
Clerk’s Court Minutes, filed, add
July 5 Memorandum of Opinion—filed (Pointer)-cm lrc
5 Judgment in accordance with memo entering judg
ment in favor of defts.; each party to bear own
costs—filed & entered (Pointer)-cm lrc
15 Motion of pltf. for New Trial-filed-es del. SPC lrc
see 10/11/77 order
15 Motion of pltfs. to Alter or Amend Judgment-filed-
cs del. SCPTrs— see 10/11/77 entries
Sept. 7 Response of pltfs. to motion of company to clarify
taxation of costs or to retax costs-—filed-cs lrc
del. SCP.
Oct. 4 Motion of Pullman-Standard to> Clarify Taxation of
Costs or to Retax Costs—filed cs del. SCP lrc
DENIED; 11/16/77-SCP-cm lrc
LI Memorandum of Opinion—filed (Pointer)-cm lrc
11
DATE
1977
11
Nov. 18
21
21
21
21
21
Dec 14
Dec 20
30
1978
Jan 16
16
PROCEEDINGS
Order granting new trial limited to seniority sys
tem under Sec. 703(h) of Civil Rights Act of
1964— filed & entered (Pointer)-cm lrc
Interrogatories of pltfs. to Deft. Company on Se
niority Remand Issue-filed-es lrc
Request of pltf. for Production by Local Lodge
372, IAM-filed-cs lrc
Request of pltfs. for Production by deft, company-
filed-cs lrc
Request of pltfs. for Production by Steelworkers
Union-filed-cs lrc
Interrogatories of pltfs. to Local Lodge 372, IAM-
filed-cs lrc
Interrogatories of pltfs. to Steelworkers Union-
filed-cs lrc
Request of plff for execution of judgment for plffs’
court costs on appeal, filed
Answers of deft, Pullman-Standard, to interroga
tories by plff, filed— cs Ipc
Notice that the plaintiffs will take the depositions
of Mautman Herring, Colon Clemons, Bill Crock-
well and Clyde Robertson, Jan 9, 1978, at Bir
mingham, Ala., filed, cs Ihj
Deposition of Clyde A. Robertson taken on behalf
of plff—filed Ipc
Deposition of Colon V. Clemons taken on behalf
of plff—filed Ipc
12
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1978
16 Deposition of Johnny Joseph Mautman Herring
taken on behalf of plff— filed Ipc
16 Deposition of William Harris Crotwell taken on
behalf of the plff, filed skh
16 Answers of deft, Steelworkers Union to interroga
tories by plff, filed.— cs add
16 On trial as to Seniority issue before the Hon Sam
C. Pointer, Jr. (Dempsey, Repr.) Answers by
defendants (Company & Union) to plff s’ inter
rogatories that were filed 12-20-77 and 2-16-78
respectively, received in evidence by the Court.
Deposition of Mautman Herring offered into
evidence by plff and rec’d by Court. Deposition
of Colon Clemons offered into evidence by plff
and rec’d by the Court. Deposition of Clyde
Robertson offered into evidence by plff and rec’d
by Court. Deposition of William Crotwell offered
into evidence by plff and rec’d by Court. Plffs’
exhibits 1 thru 111 offered in evidence and rec’d
by Court. Deft company exhibits 1 thru 27 of
fered in evidence and rec’d by Court. Defts’ evi
dence put on by stipulation dictated into the
record. Simultaneous briefs to be submitted to
the Court by 2-16-78 and reply briefs to be sub
mitted by 3-2-78. Case taken under submission.
16 Clerk’s Court Minutes, filed add
Feb 24 Writ of execution of judgment for plffs’ court costs
on appeal issued—del to USM for service skh
Mar 3 Request of plffs for judicial notice adjudicative
facts, with attachments, filed— cs skh
May 5 Memorandum of Opinion (Pullman-Standard V) —
filed and entered (Pointer) cm skh
LE
5
15
25
25
81
21
21
27
28
10
13
PROCEEDINGS
JUDGMENT in accordance with findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained in Memoran
dum of Opinion filed concurrently herewith, is
entered in favor of defts; each party shall bear
its own costs—filed and entered (Pointer) cm
skh
Motion of deft, Pullman-Standard under Rule
52(b) for relief, filed—cs skh— SEE ORDER
DATED 5/81/78
Response of plffs to Pullman Standard’s motion to
amend judgment filed— cs-snh
Amendment of deft, Pullman Standard, to motion,
filed, with attachments—cs skh
ORDER dated 5/30/78 that upon consideration of
deft Pullman-Standard’s motion, said motion is
denied—filed and entered (Pointer) cm skh
Notice of appeal by plffs, Louis Swint and Willie
James Johnson, etc. to Fifth Circuit from final
order entered on May 5, 1978, and all prior in
terlocutory orders entered herein, filed—del to
SPC lpc
Bond ($250.00) for costs on appeal, filed lpc
Transcript of proceedings before the Hon. Sam
C. Pointer, Jr. on January 16, 1978 filed skh
ORDER that the time within which the record on
appeal in this cause may be filed with the U. S.
Court of Appeals is extended to and including
August 11, 1978—filed and entered (Pointer)
cm skh
Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on February 22,
1977—filed skh
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action Number 71-955
Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,
yg Plaintiffs,
Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel
workers of A merica, Local 1466; and United Steel
workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Defendants.
Jun. 20, 1974
AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1343(4) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202. This is a suit in equity authorized
and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Act of Con
gress known as “ The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court
is invoked to secure protection of and to redress depriva
tion of rights secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.,
providing for injunctive and other relief against racial
discrimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
providing for the equal rights of all persons in every
state and territory within the jurisdiction of the United
States to make and enforce contracts. Jurisdiction of
this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 151
et seq., based on violations of the duty of fair representa
tion owed to plaintiffs and the class they represent.
* * * *
15
V.
(A) Defendant, Pullman Standard, is a Producer of
railroad cars, doing business in the State of Alabama,
and the City of Bessemer. The Company operates and
maintains offices and plants and is an employer within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b) or (c) in that the
Company is engaged in an industry affecting commerce
and employs at least twenty-five persons.
(B) Defendant, International Union, United Steel
workers and Local 1466 is a labor organization within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1 2000e(d) and (c) in that
United Steelworkers, Local 1466 is engaged in an in
dustry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or in
part, for the purpose of dealing with the Company con
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours, and other terms or conditions of employment of
the employees of the Company at its plants and other fa
cilities located in various cities and states throughout
the United States, including employees of the Company’s
plants and other facilities in and around the City of
Bessemer in the State of Alabama. The Local 1466,
U.S.W. has at least twenty-five members.
(C) The International Association of Machinist and
Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO, is the certified collective
bargaining agent for the employees in the machinists
bargaining unit. It has at least twenty-five members.
VI.
(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, con
ditions and privileges of employment of the plaintiffs and
the class they represent have been, at all times material
to this action, governed and controlled by collective bar
gaining agreements entered into between the Interna
tional Union, United Steelworkers, and the Company and/
or local supplemental agreements (hereinafter referred
16
to as “ agreements” ) entered into between Local 1466
and the Company. Under and pursuant to the terms of
the aforementioned agreements, the defendants have es
tablished a promotional and seniority system, the design,
intent and purpose of which is to continue and preserve,
and which has the effect of continuing and preserving,
the defendants’ policy, practice, custom and usage of
limiting the employment and promotional opportunity of
Negro employees of the Company because of race or
color.
(B) Defendant Local 1466 has failed and refused to
properly represent its black members with respect to the
matters herein complained of.
(C) The International Association of Machinist and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is subject to service of
process herein and its joinder will not deprive the court
of jurisdiction under the subject matter of this action.
In its absence, complete relief can not be accorded among
those already parties. In addition, the said International
Union has an interest relating to the subject of this ac
tion and it is so situated that the disposition of this
action in his absence may as a practicable matter im
pair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Plain
tiffs do not seek any monetary damages against this
defendant.
17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action Number 71-955
Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel
workers of A merica, Local 1466; United Steel
workers of America, AFL-CIO; International As
sociation of Machinists, AFL-CIO; and Local 372,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO,
Defendants.
[Filed July 12, 1974]
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
By leave of court previously granted, plaintiffs file
this complaint, as twice amended.
I.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1343(4), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202. This is a suit in equity authorized
and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Act of Con
gress known as “ The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court is in
voked to secure protection of and to redress deprivation
of rights secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.,
providing for injunctive and other relief against racial
discrimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
providing for the equal rights of all persons in every
18
state and territory within the jurisdiction of the United
States to make and enforce contracts. Jurisdiction of
this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 151
et seq., based on violations of the duty of fair representa
tion owed to plaintiffs and the class they represent.
II.
A. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated pur
suant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce
dure. The class which plaintiffs represent is composed
of black persons who are employed, or might be em
ployed, by the Pullman Standard Company at its plant
located in Bessemer, Alabama, and who are members or
might become members, of the International Union,
United Steelworkers of America, and Local 1466, who
have been and continue to be or might be adversely af
fected by the practices complained of herein.
B. There are common questions of law and fact af
fecting the rights of the members of this class who
are, and continue to be limited, classified and discrimi
nated against in ways which deprive and tend to deprive
them of equal employment opportunities and otherwise
adversely affect their status as employees because of
race and color. These persons are so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. A common re
lief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately
represented by plaintiffs. Defendants have acted or re
fused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.
C. The prosecution of separate actions by or against
individual members of the class would create a risk of
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to in
dividual members of the class which would establish
incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.
19
III.
This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to
plaintiffs’ rights and for a preliminary and permanent
injunction, restraining defendants from maintaining a
policy, practice, custom or usage of: (a) discriminating
against plaintiffs and black persons in this class because
of a race or color with respect to compensation, terms,
conditions and privileges of employment and (b) limit
ing, segregating and classifying employees of defendant,
Pullman Standard Company, who are members of Inter
national Union, United Steelworkers Local 1466, in ways
which deprive plaintiffs and other black persons in this
class of equal employment opportunities and otherwise
adversely affect their status as employees because of race
and color.
IV.
(A) Plaintiff Louis Swint is a Negro citizen of the
United States and a resident of Bessemer in the State
of Alabama. Plaintiff Swint has been employed by de
fendant, Pullman Standard at its plant in Bessemer,
Alabama and is a member in good standing of Inter
national Union, United Steelworkers, Local 1466.
(B) Plaintiff Willie James Johnson is a Negro citizen
of the United States and a resident of Bessemer in the
State of Alabama. Plaintiff Johnson is and has been
employed by defendant Pullman Standard, at its plant
in Bessemer, Alabama and is a member in good stand
ing of International Union, United Steelworkers, Local
1466.
(C) Plaintiff Clyde Humphrey is a black male citizen
of the United States and a resident of the City of Besse
mer, Alabama. He is and has been employed by the
defendant, Pullman Standard, at its plant in Bessemer,
Alabama and is a member in good standing of Inter
national Union, United Steelworkers, Local 1466.
20
V.
(A) Defendant, Pullman Standard, is a Producer of
railroad cars, doing business in the State of Alabama,
and the City of Bessemer. The Company operates and
maintains offices and plants and is an employer within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b) or (c) in that
the Company is engaged in an industry affecting com
merce and employs at least twenty-five persons.
(B) Defendant, International Union, United Steel
workers and Local 1466 is a labor organization within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (d) and (c) in that
United Steelworkers, Local 1466 is engaged in an in
dustry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or in part,
for the purpose of dealing with the Company concern
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours,
and other terms or conditions of employment of the
employees of the Company at its plants and other fa
cilities located in various cities and states throughout the
United States, including employees of the Company’s
plants and other facilities in and around the City of
Bessemer in the State of Alabama. The Local 1466,
U.S.W. has at least twenty-five members,
(C) The International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO, is the parent organization
of the certified collective bargaining agent for the em
ployees in the machinists’ bargaining unit. It has at
least twenty-five members.
(D) Defendant Local 372, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is the
certified collective bargaining agent for the employees
of the machinists’ bargaining unit at Pullman Standard’s
plant in Bessemer, Alabama.
VI.
(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, con
ditions and privileges of employment of the plaintiffs
21
and the class they represent have been, at all times
material to this action, governed and controlled by col
lective bargaining agreements entered into between the
International Union, United Steelworkers, and the Com
pany and/or local supplemental agreements (hereinafter
referred to as “ agreements” ) entered into between Local
1466 and the Company. Under and pursuant to the
terms of the aforementioned agreements, the defendants
have established a promotional and seniority system, the
design, intent and purpose of which is to continue and
preserve, and which has the effect of continuing and
preserving, the defendants’ policy, practice, custom and
usage of limiting the employment and promotional op
portunity of Negro employees of the Company because
of race or color.
(B) Defendant Local 1466 has failed and refused to
properly represent its black members with respect to the
matters herein complained of.
(C) The International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and its local affiliate, Local
372 are subject to service of process herein and their
joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction under
the subject matter of this action. In their absence, com
plete relief can not be accorded among those already
parties. In addition, the said International Union and
its local affiliate have an interest relating to the subject
of this action and is so situated that the disposition of
this action in their absence may as a practicable matter
impair or impede their ability to protect that interest.
Plaintiffs do not seek any monetary damages against
these defendants.
(D) Plaintiff Clyde Humphrey alleges that he was
discharged by the company on November 10, 1972 be
cause of his race or color. He filed a grievance concern
ing this discharge; and his grievance was upheld by an
22
arbitration award dated November 20, 1973. However
the award failed to accord back pay to plaintiff Hum
phrey for the period of his unlawful discharge. Plain
tiff Humphrey had earlier filed a charge of discrimina
tion against the Company and Local 1466 of the Steel
workers, alleging that he was discriminatorily assigned
to perform various duties. We received a notice of his
right to sue on March 27, 1974.
VII.
(A) The effect, purpose and intent of the policies and
practices pursued by the Company have been and con
tinue to be to limit, segregate, classify and discriminate
against Negro workers at its Bessemer, Alabama plant
in ways which jeopardize the jobs of and tend to deprive
the said Negro workers of equal employment opportuni
ties and otherwise adversely affect their status as em
ployees because of their race and color.
VIII.
(A) The Company discriminates against blacks in
awarding temporary assignments by giving blacks less
desirable jobs and depriving them of training in the
more desirable jobs.
(B) The Company maintains a policy, practice, cus
tom, or usage of segregated facilities and of utilizing
physicians with segregated facilities.
(C) The Company discriminates against blacks in its
hiring policies.
IX.
Plaintiffs and the class they represent are qualified
for promotions and for training which could lead to
hiring and promotions on the same basis as such op
portunities are provided for white employees.
23
X.
(A) On various dates, including but not limited to the
following: October 15, 1969, May 11, 1970 and July
31, 1970, plaintiff Louis Swint filed written charges,
under oath, with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission alleging denial by defendants of plaintiffs’
rights under Title VII of the “ Civil Rights Act of 1964,”
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
(B) On or about September 22, 1971, plaintiff Swint
was advised that he was entitled to institute a civil ac
tion in the appropriate Federal District Court within
thirty (30) days of receipt of said letter.
(C) Neither the State of Alabama nor the City of
Bessemer has a law prohibiting the unlawful employ
ment practices alleged herein.
XI.
At all times material herein Local 1466 and the In
ternational Union, United Steelworkers of America have
been the certified recognized representatives under the
National Labor Relations Act of the plaintiffs and the
class they represent and, as such, have the duty, under
the National Labor Relations Act, to act impartially and
fairly represent the interests of plaintiffs and the class
they represent.
XII.
Defendants International Union, United Steelworkers
of America and Local 1466 have violated and continue
to violate their duty of fair representation imposed on
them by the National Labor Relations Act in that they
have acquiesced and/or joined in the unlawful and dis
criminatory practices and policies complained of herein
and they have failed to protect the Negro members of
the Company from said discriminatory policies and prac
tices. The Company has knowingly participated in or
24
acquiesced in said violation of the duty of fair rep
resentation.
XIII.
After the service of charges herein upon the Com
pany, it implemented a scheme of systematic harrassment
and intimidation of plaintiff Louis Swint, as a reprisal
for his having filed the said charges. This policy led to
the ultimate discharge of plaintiff Swint by the Pullman
Company, in retaliation for the charges he filed.
XIV.
Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no plain,
adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the
wrongs alleged herein and this suit for a preliminary
and permanent injunction is their only means of secur
ing adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they rep
resent are now suffering and will continue to suffer ir
reparable injury from the defendants’ policies, practices,
customs and usages as set forth herein.
XV.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court
to advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hear
ing at the earliest practicable date, cause this case to be
in every way expedited and upon such hearing to :
1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the
named defendants, their agents, successors, employees,
attorneys and those acting in concert with them and
at their direction from continuing to abridge the rights
of plaintiffs in respect to compensation, terms, condi
tions and privileges of employment and from limiting,
segregating and classifying plaintiffs and the class they
represent in ways which deprive plaintiffs and other
black persons of this class of equal employment oppor
25
tunities and from otherwise adversely affecting their
status as employees because of race and color.
2. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a
declaratory judgment that the actions of defendant com
plained of herein violate the rights of plaintiffs and the
class they represent guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
3. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent re
lief requiring defendants to make whole, by appropriate
reinstatement and immediate promotion, backpay, and
otherwise, all such individuals who have been adversely
affected by the practices and the policies herein com
plained of from the time of defendants’ wrongful denial
of employment to the present.
4. Allow plaintiffs, their costs herein, including rea
sonable attorneys fees as provided in Section 706 (k) of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and
other additional relief as may appear to the Court to be
equitable and just.
/&/ U. W. Clemon
U. W. Clemon
Adams, Baker & Clemon
Suite 1600 - 2121 Building
2121 Eighth Avenue, North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. 71-955-S
Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated,
vs Plaintiffs,
Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama, et al.,
Defendants.
Jul. 8, 1974
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND
AREOSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
Comes now defendant International Union of Ma
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and for an
swer to the amended complaint filed herein, states as
follows:
1. Defendant denies each and every allegation of the
amended complaint, except Paragraphs V(C) and VI
(C), which are the only portions of said complaint which
contains any allegation concerning defendant.
2. As to the allegations of Paragraph V(C) , defend
ant admits that it has at least 25 members, but states
that its Local Lodge, rather than the International Union,
is actually the certified collective bargaining agent for
various employees at Pullman-Standard.
3. As to the allegations of Paragraph VI (C), defend
ant admits those allegations, except to the effect that it
is not the bargaining agent as explained above.
4. Defendant denies that it has violated Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or the Civil
27
Rights Act of 1866. Defendant further denies that it
has discriminated against any member of the Machinists’
bargaining unit or any other black employee of Pullman-
Standard.
5. Defendant submits to the jurisdiction of this Court,
understanding that no claim for monetary relief of any
kind is made against it, and offers to abide by any de
cree which may be entered by this Court.
6. Defendant reserves the right to call witnesses at
the trial, although it has not had sufficient knowledge of
the claims against it to enable it to comply with the
Court’s pretrial order requiring the listing of witnesses
ten days prior to the trial.
Cooper, Mitch & Crawford
By /s / John C. Falkenberry
John C. Falkenberry
409 North 21st Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
328-9576
Attorneys for Defendant
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CA 71-P-955
SWINT, ET AL.
V.
Pullman-Standard, et al.
SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
HELD JUNE 4, 1974
1. Counsel. The following counsel were present: For
plaintiffs, U. W. demon; for defendant Company, C. V.
Stelzenmuller; and for defendant Steelworkers Union,
John C. Falkenberry.
2. Class Action. The parties have made known cer
tain facts to the court and have agreed that such facts
may be considered by the court without formal hearing
otherwise required under Rule 23. On the basis thereof,
the court finds and concludes that the prerequisites of
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are satisfied and that this
action may hereafter be maintained on behalf of all
black persons who are now or have (within one year
prior to the filing of any charges under Title VII) been
employed by defendant Company as production or main
tenance employees represented by the United Steel
workers. The court concludes that individual notifica
tion of class members is unnecessary in this action under
Rule 23(b) (2) but that it would be appropriate for a
general notification of the pendency of this litigation to
be posted at the premises of the Company. Counsel for
the parties shall attempt to draft such a notification and
in the event of disagreement the same shall be presented
to the court for its approval.
29
3. Parties. Leave is hereby granted to the plaintiffs
to add as additional party defendant (insofar as the re
lief requested may involve or infringe upon the pro
visions of such Union’s collective bargaining agreement
with the Company, it being noted however that no re
quest for monetary relief is being sought against said
Union) the appropriate entity of the International As
sociation of Machinists. Leave is also granted for the in
tervention as a party plaintiff of an employee by the
name of Humphrey for the presentation of his claim
under Section 1981 with respect to his discharge and
subsequent reinstatement without back pay.
4. Issues. The following charges are made by the
plaintiffs as violations of either Title VII or of Section
1981:
(a) That a system of departmental seniority,
even with changes made pursuant to a corrective
action program with the Department of Labor,
nevertheless perpetuates the effects of past discrimi
nation in the assignment of black employees to gen
erally less desirable departments. This issue sub
sumes the following assertions by the plaintiffs:
The transfer provisions under the agreement
with the Department of Labor apply to only
four departments; the transfer rights which are
granted under such plan are inadequate by rea
son of the failure to provide red-circle rates and
by reason of the restriction to a single exercise
of such rights; and such rights of transfer do
not apply to jobs in the machine shop repre
sented by the I AM. (The issue relative to the
machine shop may have to be severed for sub
sequent trial depending upon the joinder, serv
ice, and availability and readiness of the IAM
with respect to the trial date already scheduled.)
(b) The Company has discriminatorily made as
signments of functions to persons serving in the
30
same job classification based on race and has dis
crim inatory assigned persons on the basis of race
to “ lateral” job classifications having the same job
class.
(c) The Company has discriminatory failed ^o
promote black production and maintenance employees
to supervisory and managerial positions. ^
(d) As individual, non-systemic, claims, the Com
pany has discharged the plaintiff Swint in violation
of Title VII or Section 1981 and has discharged
(without giving back pay or reinstatement) the po
tential Intervenor Humphrey in violation of Section
1981.
The plaintiffs seek back pay or other monetary relief
incident to the foregoing claims of discrimination; but
such issue is severed for trial, if necessary, at a subse
quent date. The plaintiffs, in view of proposals made
by the defendants in conference, do not intend to chal
lenge the practice by which daily assignments and va
cancies have not been publicly posted; but reserve the
right to present such an issue at trial if the conference
proposals by the defendants prove to be unsatisfactory.
The defendants deny the several charges of discrimina
tion set out above and in addition assert defenses in part
based upon applicable statutes of limitation and the
effect of arbitration awards.
5. Discovery. The parties are given leave to proceed
with further discovery provided the same be completed
at least ten days prior to trial. The parties shall at least
ten days prior to trial exchange a list of witnesses and
documents which they anticipate utilizing at trial.
Done this the 4th day of June, 1974.
/ s / Sam C. Pointer, Jr.
Sam C. Pointer, Jr.
United States District Judge
31
TRANSCRIPT OF 1974 TRIAL
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
[2] Mr. John C. Falkenberry, of the firm Cooper, Mitch
& Crawford, 409 North 21st Street, Birmingham, Ala
bama and Messers. D. Frank Davis and C. V. Stelzen-
muller, of the firm Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr &
Murray, Birmingham, and Mr. Franklin B. Synder, 200
South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, appear
ing on behalf of the Defendants.
* * * *
[3] PROCEEDINGS
July 8,1974 10:00 A.M.
MORNING SESSION
THE COURT: * * *
* *X- * *
[6] The Grand Lodge of Machinists has been named
as a party defendant in this case for the limited pur
pose that a part of the relief sought by the plaintiffs
may involve some modification to the collective bargain
ing agreement between the Machinists and the defend
ant company. The Grand Lodge has indicated that it
submits to the jurisdiction of the Court for that limited
purpose, not agreeing that any such changes are due to
be made, but acknowledging merely that the Court would
have power to make such a change if it otherwise [7]
was merited by the evidence in the case, and subject
further to the fact that the local lodge of the Machinists
which apparently is the certified labor union at Pullman-
Standard, has not been made as a party defendant and
the plaintiff is however given leave, if it desires, if they
32
desire to do so, to add the local lodge as an additional
party defendant, again only for the limited purpose that
relief in the form of some modification of the collective
bargaining agreement is a part of the requested relief
which the plaintiff seeks. That amendment, however, if
one be made, should be made I think during this week
so we do know what the status is.
* * * *
[400] MS. PRIVETT: I call Harvest Morgan.
MR. HARVEST MORGAN,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
* * * *
[402] Q All right. What is your job class now?
A I’m in the Job Class 11, rivet driver.
Q All right. Mr. Morgan, have you ever served as
a temporary foreman?
A I most certainly has. In 1971 we were put on
the night shift, and I was promoted to supervisor to run
the sides and ends job. And I run that job close to two
years. * * *
* * * *
[424] Q As a matter of fact, Mr. Morgan, you
couldn’t make production if everybody just chose up sides
like on a ball team, could you, as to where they want to
work?
A No. You couldn’t make production if you didn’t
have the men in the right place and right men to do the
job, you wouldn’t.
* * * *
[832] MISS PRIVETT: I call Tommy Williams, Jr.
MR. TOMMY WILLIAMS, JR.,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
* * * *
33
[860] Q So a fellow just doesn’t go all over that side
and do whatever strikes his fancy, he sticks to what he
is doing, he sticks to one thing usually?
A Say he do what now?
Q I say, any member of that twelve man team that
you have, they kind of do the same thing on each seal,
don’t they?
A Well, they have a job there to do, right.
[861] Q That’s right. If I am working on this end,
the next time the seal comes down there I wouldn’t go
down to the other end and start riveting down there,
would I, if I was a riveter? You sort of do the same
thing over and over again?
A I just stated that everybody has got a job, you
know. You have got a job and they got another job on
the other end doing the same thing.
Q And that is part of the teamwork, isn’t it, that
piece after piece you can get more production because
you get used to doing that exact little set of duties, isn’t
that right?
A What do you mean by used to doing?
Q What I am saying is, if you swap with another
man, it will take you a little while to get used to what
he is doing.
[862] A Well, for some people. See, I can do it all.
For some people, you know, that haven’t did, these people
they mess around sometimes, you know, but you just
don’t get a man and you know, just like you are saying,
just move around from one job. He got a specific job,
I got a job, and sometime occasionally I would go on
the other end of the department and drive a few rivets.
Q Kind of like a football team, people work together ;
they do different things, and they do them together. As
the work together, they get better, don’t they?
A That is right.
Q And that is the way it works?
A All the time, I guess.
34
Q And if you had every man to be able to switch
from end to quarterback, that would mess everything up?
A All depends upon whether you know what you
would call understanding about what is going on all the
time.
Q That is right.
Everybody perfect, it woudn’t matter, but [863] they
are not, are they?
A That is right, you are right.
Q I don’t think any of us are?
A Not any of us; capable of making mistakes, big
mistakes.
Q That is another thing, you kind of reduce the
number of mistakes if you are sticking to bucking these
particular set of holes or particular set of rivets. It
avoids mistakes because you get real familiar with what
you are doing on that side sill, don’t you?
A Yes.
Q And if there was some system set up where every
day you just choose up sides and say, somebody would be
working in the paint department wants to come down
and work in the steel construction, it wouldn’t be likely
to be something that would work out very well, would it?
A All depends on if he is familiar with the job.
* * * *
[865] Q Well, let me ask you if it isn’t true that
[866] at sometimes you say you start up a new order
and you get assigned and you have some green men with
your crew, or let’s just say you might even have a bunch
of men that didn’t know each other and hadn’t worked
together, takes you a while before you can get through
by 1:30 or 12 o’clock; doesn’t it?
A Right.
Q At the very outset of a new order, if you have
green men that you are not familiar with, might be good
men, but not familiar with working with each other, you
could just see how every day maybe you get through a
35
little bit earlier with your daily quota and you get down
to where after the order starts, you get down to where
you are really cutting the mustard then, is that true?
A That is right.
Q Sometimes if you start out an order and some
green men are on there, you might have to work until
3:15?
A Right. * * * *
[1200] MR. CLEMON: Mr. Lewis Pinkard.
MR. LEWIS PINKARD,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
* * * *
Q Where do you now work?
A Pullman-Standard.
[1201] Q When did you go to work for Pullman?
A July,’62.
* * * *
[1203] * * * What is your present position if any with
the union?
A Grievance committeeman.
* * * *
[1212] Q When were the bath houses integrated at
Pullman?
A Well, they were left open for blacks and whites in
1968, but they weren’t integrated yet.
Q Prior to 1968 had the bath houses at Pullman been
segregated?
A Right. # * * *
[1226] MR. STELZENMULLER: We call Mr. Don
Frederick.
MR. DONALD D. FREDERICK
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
36
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER) What is your
full name?
A Donald D. Frederick.
Q And Mr. Frederick, you are employed by Pullman-
Standard?
A Yes.
Q Out at the Bessemer plant?
A Yes.
Q What is your position there?
A Assistant plant manager.
Q How long have you held that position, Mr.
Frederick?
A I have held this position nine years. I have been
with the company eighteen.
* * * *
[1227] Q Mr. Frederick, just by way of introduction
of this, can you give us a general description of the
Pullman-Standard car plant in Bessemer and a descrip
tion of the general nature of the manufacturing process
and any unusual characteristics of it?
A Yes, I think I can.
Q Would you tell the Court what type of plant that
is, and any characteristics of the production process in
general that are significant to its operating methods?
[1228] A Well, at the present time the plant employs
approximately 2800 people in 22 departments. These de
partments, although unrelated in the individual skills
required collectively form the team at Pullman-Standard.
The skill and efficiency demonstrated in each individual
department in accomplishing its own tasks determine how
well the team functions in the one common goal of build
ing a quality freight car to the railroad specifications
and maintain customer satisfaction in a fairly high com
petitive field. The freight car manufacturing business
is unlike any other business of its size. It functions more
37
like a small contract fabricator, and that each order or
lot as we refer to them is estimated, bid and engineered
to meet the individual railroad specifications for the car
to be built. This carries on through the manufacturing
operation also in that jib, engineering, die engineering,
manufacturing, planning, the application of labor by
rate department, varies with each order. The orders will
vary in size from possibly 25 cars to several thousand.
The Bessemer plant is probably [1229] as versatile a
plant as there is in the world. It has built many types
of cars, such as boxcars, flat cars, gondolas, open hopper
car, covered hopper cars, as well as too many variations
of these basic cars to mention here. The variety of cars
and the fact that cars are custom built makes it impos
sible to stock any quantity of material or to build any
cars for inventory. It just becomes economical and a
physical impossibility. The freight car building business
is unique compared to other businesses of its size in
that it has only one customer, the nation’s railroad.
Thus as the railroads go pretty much as the way Pull
man-Standard goes. I believe anyone who has worked
for, lived in the vicinity of a car plant can attest to the
cycle and the inherent layout problems it creates. Also
the reverse problem, the procurement of people in build
ing a quality car. This external cyclical nature is fairly
evident to everybody around it which is created mainly
by the purchasing power, lack of or intensity of, but I
believe a more subtle internal cycle of labor movement
is I believe—this is even greater [1230] than the exter
nal cycle. These occur at any production level, even with
peak order book and peak production. This is a very
difficult cycle to try to explain verbally, but I would like
if you bear with me, I will attempt to explain it as sim
ply as I can. The cycle, or more appropriately the cycles
that the applications and reduction of labor on any given
lot of cars will simulate, is that of possibly three sign
waves, displacement in time and varying in magnitude.
38
The first wave starts on the steel erection track, and
if you will try to picture this, it starts at—in a valley
in terms of labor application due to the changeover of
the track on jigs, fixtures, handling equipment from the
requirements of one type of car to the requirements of
the following car. This time can vary from a few hours
to several weeks, but usually is done within one week.
The magnitude of the wave begins to build as the new
car proceeds down the production line through in the
case of a boxcar some eighteen positions and will con
tinue to build in magnitude [1231] until such time the
car reaches the set task or number of cars produced for
that day, for each day.
The second wave in a case of a boxcar is generated at
the wood erection where any interior equipment that is
required in the car is installed. This wave starts in a
valley approximately a week to ten days after the steel
erection starts. This valley is created by both the differ
ence in the cars and the absence of cars having been
produced on the steel erection track during a change
over. The same type of build up in manpower then
occurs into up to 24 positions as had occurred on the
steel track. In recent years with the exodus of wood,
these people have been mainly welders and steel erectors.
Then the third wave which comes about after cars
start to come out of the erection— the wood erection area
which normally would follow it by a week to ten days
ago, start when the cars go successively through the shot
blast, prime paint, finish paint, stencil, and finally come
to the shipping track. Now what does all this mean?
[1232] It means say in the case of the welding depart
ment, which is our largest department, it is approxi
mately 800 people, that the manpower requirements for
this department are being generated by three different
waves with peaks and valleys occurring at different
times. The combination of these waves again in terms
of the welding department generates a wave of require
39
ments that is rather irregular in nature when you com
bine the three waves. Considering also that it takes ap
proximately 100 cars started on erection track before
the first car is on the shipping track, we can get some
idea of what the frequency of this wave can be. Many
times when the first car hits the shipping track, the last
car is on the erection track. This represents as descrip
tively as I can put it what happens in terms of one line
of cars.
To look at the overall picture, we must understand the
phenomena is occurring on two other lines at the same
time with none of the peaks and valleys coinciding. Here
again in the case of the welding department, if all the
waves generated by the three tracks were combined, they
[1233] would generate a very complicated wave of re
quirements in terms of manpower, both in magnitude
and chain. And to explain the many movements of man
power to satisfy production needs, this is a difficult chart
or graph to ever draw because it spells out magnitude,
but it dosen’t spell displacement between waves in terms
of labor. I imagine probably these rapid changes in man
power recognized years ago by the labor and manage
ment are why the five day and two day clauses were
injected into our labor contract. The five day clause
provides that if a man also is laid off due to a track
change, he need not be placed in an already producing
order if he is to be recalled within five days. The two
day provision allows two days to place a man on a pro
duction order if he is not to be recalled in two days— in
five days. Both of these clauses tend to smooth out the
movement of manpower and level out a few of the ripples
caused by these waves and create a less effect on quality
and production when movements do occur. I think these
are probably the biggest single items that are unique to
the car building business. I don’t know of another indus
try [1234] that operates as singly, yet has to operate so
totally on a production line basis. I believe this will de
40
scribe the uniqueness of the shop, and I would like at
this time if the Court would permit, to walk through a
pictorial plant tour in which we can maybe explain some
of the physical characteristics of the car plant.
* * * *
[1392] MR. STELZENMULLER: Call Mr. F. B.
Snyder.
FRANKLIN B. SNYDER,
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
* * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION
* * * *
Q By whom are you employed?
A Pullman, Inc.
Q In what capacity and in what office, what city?
[1393] A I’m a lawyer with their law department in
Chicago.
Q And since you have been in the law department
there since September, 1962, have you had any particular
area of responsibility?
* * * *
[1394] A I have filed and worked with the various
plants in our company in the different divisions, the de
velopments under the Civil Rights Act, and the various
executive orders which are imposed upon government
contractors. I have attended reviews, compliance reviews.
I have worked on the affirmative action plans and pro
grams for different locations.
Q And let’s see, your company has a plant, car build
ing plant in Butler, Pennsylvania, does it not?
A Yes, sir.
41
Q How many blacks are employed there presently,
if you know?
A At present there are about nine out of the entire
force.
[1395] THE COURT: I am having difficulty hearing.
A I am sorry, Judge.
THE COURT: You will have to speak up.
A About nine Negro employees on the Butler pay
roll.
Q The plant is somewhat smaller than Bessemer but
has a payroll upward of a thousand, I take it?
A Oh, yes, it is larger than that.
* * • * *
[1461] July 16,1974 9 :00 A.M.
MORNING SESSION
THE COURT: I believe there is to be an announce
ment on behalf of one of the union defendants.
MR. FALKENBERRY: Yes, sir, may it please the
Court.
On Friday an amended complaint was served on Mr.
Horn who is the president of Machinists Local Lodge
372, if Your Honor please. I represent that local lodge,
although I have not formally filed an answer, I will do
so if I might just state for the record my appearance
in the event that I may want to propound questions on
behalf of that local as well as the international.
THE COURT: Mr. Snyder, are you ready to resume
the stand?
MR. SNYDER: Yes, sir.
* * * *
[1463] Q And it was after the union was unable to
satisfy the government regarding its proposals that it
indicated finally that it would not sign the same agree-
42
ment that the company had signed in January of 1969?
A That’s right, sir.
* * *
[1464] CROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. CLEMON) Mr. Snyder, what specifi
cally were the proposals that were made by the union in
1969?
A As a negotiating move in relation to the govern
ment, the union suggested a form of transfer possibilities
which did not entail taking plant seniority anywhere in
the plant, but it was a somewhat broader proposal in the
sense of offering transfers to employees than the govern
ment ended up with.
Q Was the union in effect proposing that a member
of the affected class who wished to transfer should be
allowed to transfer to any department and enter that
department as a new man?
A I don’t believe that it was expressed in terms of
an affected class at all.
* * * *
[1465] Q But once they entered the new department,
they would enter in effect as a new man at the bottom
of the seniority list for that department?
[1466] A That was the suggestion, yes, as covered
obviously Negroes and whites.
Q Were there any other seniority proposals which
were made by the union at that time?
A I don’t remember any.
* * * *
[1472] Q Now, Mr. Snyder, is it a fair statement
that in 1972 the OFCC Agreement is virtually identical
to the 1969 agreement?
* * * *
43
Q Red circling was eliminated from the 1972 agree
ment?
A That is right. It is not in that agreement.
* * * *
[1770] MR. STELZENMULLER: Call Mr. Debrow.
HARRY E. DEBROW, SR.,
being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER:) State your
name, please, sir?
A Harry E. Debrow, Sr.
Q And where are you employed, sir?
[1771] A Pullman Standard, Bessemer.
Q How long have you been employed by Pullman
Standard?
A Thirty-three years.
* * * *
What is your present position, Mr. Bebrow?
A Assistant Contract Compliance Officer.
* * * *
[1882] Q When did the Union the steelworkers union
organize that plant or begin to represent employees, if
you know, Mr. Debrow?
[1883] A As I recall, it was in the early 40’s.
Q Did you have any personal knowledge about that?
A Yes. I was involved in organizing it.
Q All right.
For the United States Steelworkers?
A Right.
Q And what took place there, Mr. Debrow, were
negroes active in organizing that plant?
A Negroes organized Local 1466.
44
Q Did you have— in other words, the movement be
gan with Negroes, to your knowledge?
A It did.
Q And did you have an election out there conducted
by the National Labor Relations Board?
A That is to determine we would have the bargain
ing rights, with that election.
Q I take it they had one election for the machine
shop people, which the machinists wanted, and another
for the other P & M employees?
A I believe that is about the gist of it.
Q Following the election in which the steelworkers
won for that group, right?
[1884] A They won the right to bargain, represent—
people they are representing today.
Q Have Negroes taken an active part and held offices,
stewardships, committeemen and all that, ever since?
A To my knowledge, every office in there has been
filled by Negroes at one time or another, and this orga
nizing of it was all Negro. We didn’t have a single
white officer.
Q Let me ask you if the stewards in the plant have
not been proportionately Negro anyway, or largely Negro
ever since 1941?
A Well, I couldn’t see been proportioned one way or
the other. We have had a lot of each race.
Q Not been any particular distinction, been a lot of
both races?
A Been a lot of both races from time to time.
* * * *
[1964] MR. HENRY VANN, JR.,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows :
* * * *
[1967] Q Now what is your present job?
A You mean at the present?
45
Q Right now.
A Foreman, A Foreman.
Q In the welding department?
A Welding department.
45* * * *
[2001] Q Mr. Vann, you had quite a bit of ups and
downs in the work force out there, don’t you?
A That’s right.
Q And you see on this chart here, that pretty il
lustrates how the plant can go down almost less than a
hundred men and on up to 2,800?
A Right.
Q And this means that there is a lot of times when
new forces come in that have to be placed in different
departments and positions, don’t they?
A That’s right.
* * * 46-
[2002] Q Based on your experience in training as a
welder, and in your observation of the operations in the
welding department, Mr. Vann, do you have an opinion
as to what would happen to— what effect would there
be on the operations in that welding department if on a
recall of a large number of men they were placed
throughout the plant according to how long they had been
in the plant and without respect to departments?
A You couldn’t operate it.
Q You don’t think the welding department could op
erate it?
A No.
45- * 45- *
[2010] Q On the track who decides where a man is
going to weld? Say here is the foreman and here is a
railroad car, here is a position.
A The foreman designates, you know, that he is sup
posed to weld. Each man is supposed to have a certain
amount of welding on each car.
46
Q And in that— in this situation are there some
people who—well, does he try to maintain [2011] the
same position?
A Try to balance it.
Q He don’t swap them around every day or anything
like that?
A No, you can’t do that.
Q Why is that?
A Well, if you do that, you just can’t get anything
done. See, we have a certain amount of time. Say for
instance we have sixteen car lineup, you have thirty
minutes at each car, and say for instance if you are on
the roll-over, and you have got a man doing this welding,
probably corner caps, you know, welding on top of the
car, or welding the back part of it, you just can’t keep
swapping around because you would be losing time.
Q Isn’t it kind of like a football team, you have
eleven good players, can all play football, but if they
get used to playing end, you can’t switch them to quarter
back?
A Right. You can’t designate a certain area for
them to work where every man would know his job.
Q Mr. Vann, you have seen many cars built [2012]
out there, haven’t you?
A Oh, yes.
Q Isn’t it true that when you first start up a line,
even if you have got all experienced people, and there is
a period where you are not making production, why is
that?
A Well, first of all in building cars, sometime we get
an order that we have never, you know, had at this
particular car.
Q It is a little different?
A It’s a little different. It’s your different items and
so forth that goes on it. And each foreman, you know,
has a set of blueprints, manpower that he is supposed to
use, and he has to in turn show the individual what that
he has to do to the car.
47
Q And does it take each individual a little time to
get just used to doing that particular operation?
A It does.
Q And after awhile I guess he gets to where he can
just make production and do it real easy?
A That’s right.
Q And start on another order, the same man, [2013]
he is going through the same thing again?
A That’s right.
Q And if you have say ten different positions, you
have kind of got to move at a pace of the slowest man
as far as pulling cars is concerned?
A That’s right.
Q So Mr. Vann, if you were to switch these things
around very frequently, is that why you’re saying you
couldn’t make production?
A You couldn’t.
# * * *
[2018] Q So, the more you can keep a fellow doing
the same general type work, the less you are going to
have cripples, as a rule?
A That is true.
Q And we are talking now about not just doing weld
ing, but talking about specific welding assignments, and
making that car?
A Right.
* * * *
[2135] MR. STELZENMULLER: Mr. Dick Snyder.
RICHARD C. SNYDER,
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows :
* # * -K*
Q By whom are you employed?
A Pullman-Standard.
48
Q In what capacity and what place?
A My present capacity is supervisor of engineering
at Camp Carry Technical Center in Hammond, Indiana.
Q What is done up there at this Technical Center?
A One of the functions which I am involved is [2136]
the engineering of freight cars. My particular function
is the design and engineering of boxcars.
Q Now, how long have you been working for
Pullman?
A 23 years. I started January, 1951.
Q Where was that?
A At the Pullman Standard Plant in Michigan City,
Indiana.
Q What kind of plant was that or is that plant?
[2137] A Well, the plant no longer exists, but at the
time I started it was primarily a boxcar plant.
Q Making boxcars, the same general nature as those
at Pullman?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what kind of work were you doing in Janu
ary of ’51?
A I started in January, ’51 in the jig and fixture
design department, engineering work.
Q And this involved making fixtures for use out in
the plant, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, your work took you out in the
plant- a good deal of the time?
A Yes, sir. All the time I was at Michigan City,
I was out in the plant quite a bit. At least once a day
generally speaking.
Q Now tell me Mr. Snyder, do you— are you gen
erally familiar with the way jobs were assigned up there
and the general nature of the seniority system?
A I had the general knowledge because I had to
[2138] work with the people of the overall assignments
of jobs, not the detailed classifications and so forth, but
49
I knew at Michigan City the general assignments, yes,
sir.
Q How did people—did they have a union contract?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did people apply the seniority, that is in what
kind of grouping?
A Well, Michigan City, they had a departmental
seniority, and each job was bid on by each individual
and this was done on a daily basis.
Q As I take it, like if a vacancy occurred one day,
then you would have—
A Every morning before the track started, there was
a bidding procedure that took place prior to the start
of the production track, to get the force established, and
start their daily tasks.
Q And did this procedure consume much time?
A It was very disorganized. In fact, generally speak
ing the track never started at 7 :00. It was usually 8 :00,
8:30 before the track [2139] generally started.
Q Now did they have more than one erection track
up there?
A They had two erection tracks. And at times there
was one track going and at times there were two tracks
going.
Q When they changed from one track to two track
operations, did this have any effect on the complexity of
getting organized?
A Well, it complicated the situation where you would
get employees— production employees going from one
track to obtain the better jobs.
Q Whatever they picked out?
A That’s right. Through their seniority and their
bidding of the job.
Q Let me ask you if you know was— were many
mistakes made, that is many controversies arise about
this thing?
50
A It varied. We had quite a few cripples. Especially
at the end, prior to the closing of Michigan City plant,
our quality was greatly affected by this, and we spent a
great deal of [2140] additional labor repairing cripples.
* -X* * *
[2142] Q Was it an unusual number of chalk marks
per car, compared to, say, Bessemer, if you have been
there?
A Well, actually I think the quality— if you are
asking me about the quality, I think the quality was—
prior to the closing of Michigan City, was very bad, and
much worse than anything I have ever seen at Bessemer.
* * * *
[2189] Q Well, now, Mr. Glaser, if you were to adopt
a form or something similar to what they had at Michi
gan City, do you believe you could maintain the quality
of product that you have at Bessemer?
A No, sir, I do not; I would have to say that based
on our experience with the Michigan City Plant, that
were we in a labor situation that pre- [2190] vailed at
the Michigan City Plant, we would not be able to main
tain our share of market that we enjoy now.
*
[3498] MR. FALKENBERRY: I call Mr. Ross Ham
monds.
ROSS D. HAMMONDS
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Will you state
your name, please, sir, and where you work?
A Ross D. Hammonds. I work at Pullman-Standard,
Bessemer, Alabama [3499] Q Mr. Hammonds, how
long have you worked for Pullman-Standard?
A Twenty-eight years and four months.
51
Q Prom that I take it you went to Pullman about
1946?
A Right.
Q Would that be correct?
A February 4, ’46.
Q When you first went to Pullman, Mr. Hammonds,
was there a union there?
A It was.
Q And what union was that, please, sir?
A Well, it was United Steelworkers, but it wasn’t
fully organized as it is now.
Q Well, it was back—was it back when they had
the old steelworkers acting committee under the old CIO?
A That’s right.
Q Did you join the union when you went?
A Sure I joined. You had to slip around and sign
cards from different ones that was carrying union cards
around to become a member.
Q And you did slip around and sign a union [3500]
card sometime in 1946, after you began at Pullman?
A March of ’46.
Q All right, sir. At that time in 1946, Mr. Ham
monds, was— do you recall whether the union was com
posed primarily of black employees at Pullman or pri
marily of white or of about an equal mixture; what was
the racial composition of the union at that time?
A It was integrated.
Q Would you say there were more blacks than whites
or more whites than blacks in the union?
A There was more whites. There were three white
and two black in the top five.
Q That is officers. I’m just talking about the mem
bership.
A Oh, the membership as a whole?
Q Was it mostly black?
A It was mostly black at that time.
52
Q What I understand you to say about three whites
and two blacks, were you referring to the—
A Elected officers.
Q Elected officers at the union?
A Right.
[3501] Q To your recollection, Mr. Hammonds, has
that always been the case about the officership in Local
1466, that is, that they have been integrated from 1946
when you first began to work at Pullman?
A As far as I know up until ’73 of July.
Q Who were the union officials back when you joined
the local?
A When I joined the local, the president was J. M.
Herring. He is white. Vice president was Perry Thomp
son, black. Recording secretary was John Hubbard,
which was white. The financial secretary was Pete Quick
which was white. The treasurer was— I mean the finan
cial secretary— I want to back up on that, financial sec
retary which was black was Gus Dickerson, Sr.
Q Right.
A And the treasurer was Pete Quick, white.
Q Now over the course of your membership in the
steelworkers, Mr. Hammonds, and in the course of your
employment at Pullman-Standard, have you held both
elected and appointed offices in Local 1466?
[3502] A I have. V i
Q Tell us if you will what the first position you ever
held was and when that was, if you can remember
exactly what it was?
A In 1952 I was elected by the members of the steel
erection department as shop steward.
Q How long did you serve just as a shop steward?
A Twelve years.
Q After you were a shop steward, did you hold other
offices?
A I was appointed by the local union executive
board to carry out an unexpired term due to Mr. Charlie
53
Robinson’s death as trustee in February of ’64 to June
of ’64, which I was elected then as vice president of the
local union.
Q All right. How long or how many terms—let me
put it that way, did you serve as vice president of Local
1466?
A Three terms.
Q During the time that you were vice president, did
you hold another office concurrently with the vice
presidency?
[3503] A I held chairman of the grievance commit
tee, and also carried out an unexpired term of the late
president, Perry L. Thompson.
Q Now Mr. Thompson died, I believe, in 1972?
A Right.
Q Would that be correct?
A Right.
Q And so you served as president from the time of
his death until when?
A Well, from the time that he retired I had taken
over as of the first of April, ’72.
Q All right. And you served then until the next—
A Until the election of ’73.
* * * *
[3510] MISSPRIVETT: No objection.
MR. CLEMON: No objection.
THE COURT: It’s received.
Q Mr. Hammonds, after that award was handed
down by Mr. McCoy and after black employees started
to move into the riveter jobs, was that award given
some sort of plantwide application, that is, to other
departments to let helpers and other people who had
not bid on the higher rated jobs move up?
A Well, I will say it was a ground breaker for the
entire plant.
Q Well, would it be fair to say, Mr. Hammonds,
that it is that grievance that put Mr. Wormley in the
54
position at least of being able to try out and be a
riveter at the time he was telling us about when he
testified?
A It would be.
Q Now, Mr. Hammonds, let me move considerably
forward in time from 1964 until 1972, and ask you about
a grievance that arose then. Was there a time when
the union had a grievance pending and the company
made a proposal to merge several departments as a
means of settling that grievance?
[3511] A Yeah. They did have— settle a grievance.
Q Tell the Court if you would, please, sir, just what
that grievance was about.
A As I recall the plant went down in ’72.
Q Was that—
A Due to a layoff.
Q That has been referred to several times here.
A Sure. And they had to change over to the machine
shop at this time, and they laid everybody off except
for a few employees. During the time that the plant
was down there was two automatic saws that was in
stalled in the forge department. And they were moved
from the forge department to the punch and shear de
partment. On our return back to work, we protested
the moving of the saws, either asked the men that were
formerly operating in the forge shop would go down
and operate them in the punch and shear area.
Q And take their seniority with them?
A That’s right. Well, the company said they had a
right to move the machines, and it was a dispute about
the men being moved. So the company [3512] came up
with a proposal that they would move the men out of
the wheel and axel forge shop and I believe it was the
hook-ons in the truck shop, steel miscellaneous, all merge
into and wherever seniority list falls it would be inserted
between the individuals in that department. So bringing
that proposal to the committees, we discussed very lengthy
55
in a meeting there, and I notified with the notice in the
plant to be at the union meeting the next meeting. And
as explained to some of them in the plant, what the
meeting was about and of course they passed the word
around. At our arrival at the union meeting, 4 :00 Tues
day, in the afternoon, we proposed to the members:—
Q Let me interrupt you right there and ask you
whether or not the size of the crowd at the meeting, was
it larger than usual, smaller than usual or what was
the size of the attendance at that particular meeting?
A It was a packed house, I would say. Majority of
them were black.
Q That was my next question.
Do you have any recollection about whether [3513]
there were more blacks present than whites?
A There were more blacks present than whites.
Q Tell the Court, if you will, what happened then?
You were beginning to say that the officers I guess or
did you do it personally yourself made the presentation
to the local?
A I made the presentation to the local myself.
Q You did that yourself?
A Right.
Q Did you explain what the company had proposed,
that is, to dovetail the seniority from all those depart
ments?
A We did.
Q All right. Was there a decision made by the en
tire membership present as to the company’s proposal
to dovetail seniority in those departments?
A Well, time would allow for all members that, were
present to have a chance to ask questions and speak
their opinion. And after doing that, each committee got
up and explained the part that they wanted to help
explain. Then a motion was carried allowing them to
vote on whatever way they [3514] wanted to be. The
democratic organization motion was made, seconded by
56
another member, and carried, and it was voted unani
mous to turn the proposal from the company down be
cause they didn’t want the merger in there.
Q In other words, the decision was unanimous?
A Right,
Q And the decision was to reject the proposal to
merge the department in slot seniorities?
A Right.
Q After that time and after that meeting, Mr.
Hammonds, I take it that really is the last time that
that question has come up at least in that large a
context?
A That is the only time.
* * * *
[3534] Q You testified at one time there was a vote
down there on merging. Do I understand it right that
the vote was to merge or dovetail the seniority in some
five departments?
A It was.
Q Or did it just include crane jobs in those depart
ments or was it everything in those five departments?
A That was where the men were going— operating
machines. Since we were grieving about the saw job,
which was a machine, then the company proposed to the
union to merge the forge shop, the wheel and axel de
partment, along with the hook-on and cranemans and
steel miscellaneous departments and place their seniority
wherever allotted in those departments. That is what
the vote was about.
Q Wasn’t it to—was it to put this punch [3535]
and shear department and press department in there too
or just the cranemen or what?
A Well, it was all combined.
Q All to be combined?
A Now punch and shear, press and miscellaneous,
forge and wheel and axel were proposed to be merged
with those other three named.
* * * *
57
[3535] Q * * * And I’d better ask you this, was there
any kind of advance notice to the members that that
would be voted on, and you say there was a big crowd?
A Sure. Wasn’t a written notice, but it was a no
tice what we put up saying everybody be at the union
meeting at 4:00 Tuesday, such and such a date.
* * * *
[3536] Q Were any opinions expressed in that meeting
for or against a merger of departments?
A There was only one individual that I can recall,
and he is dead now, that spoke in favor of moving it
over, because if he come over there in that department,
he would get a chance to work a little bit longer than
the rest of— than he had been. But that was only one
man.
Q Was he black or white?
A He was white.
* * * *
Q In other words, one white man spoke out for it
because— and you feel that he had something to gain
personally by a merger?
A Right. * * * *
[3537] Q And did other people speak out in opposition
to the proposal?
A Well, about-— out of about five hundred and some
thing members, I would say that were present at that
particular meeting, we will say about twenty of them
spoke their opinion about it which was against them.
Q What was the basis that—of their understanding
why, why were they against it?
A Because they didn’t want a man to come in and
be slotted over them, and cut off, and they would have
a chance to be cut off where they haven’t been. In other
words, they were being moved out of some line of promo
58
tion where it would— so they would remain in the senior
ity bracket as it is now.
Q In other words, they indicated that they had some
interest in maintaining that seniority system the way
it was?
A Right.
* * * *
[3609] Q Now, Mr. Hammonds, did y’all explore with
[3610] the company various proposals, different ways to
merge departments at that time or was it all just based
on one proposal?
A No. As I recall we set down and discussed it
several times, and we drawed up two different types of
operations there we thought might have worked, and
after looking into it, it wasn’t satisfactory enough, so
we discarded. And then we finally came up with the
assistance of the international and local union with this
proposal here, the company did. So we had taken it
before the rank and file.
Q So you say when you’re working out some prelimi
nary proposals, you were considering what would be
feasible in an operation, didn’t you?
A Sure. I was looking at the long time service
employees in that department, and I also was looking
at the advantage and disadvantage in it.
Q But I mean in making a proposal that made any
sense, you didn’t go and look say at— talk about con
fining— let me think of a good example. The paint ship
ping track department say with the power house depart
ment, that would have no— make [3611] no sense much,
would it?
A It wouldn’t have any connection as far as the
operation comparison.
Q People wouldn’t know a thing about the other op
eration, would they?
A That’s right.
59
Q So you were really considering things that would
be operationally feasible that you did have enough rela
tion that people could be reasonably be expected to
qualify on any other jobs and all that, isn’t that what
you were after at that time?
A In other words, to make it more understandable
were that if a man was a press operator or any kind
of machine operator in the forge shop, then he goes to
the press department, he would still have knowledge of
operating the machine. Now you couldn’t handle—we
thought we couldn’t handle it, take a man out of the
press department and send him to the electric depart
ment when he never has had any knowledge of electricity.
Q Certain kinds of mergers of seniorities you men
tioned just make no sense as far as building cars?
[3612] A Right.
Q That is obvious, isn’t it, Mr. Hammonds?
A That’s right.
Q You know that the company— do you know whether
or not the company has proposed other types of modifica
tions in the seniority system such as combining all the
transportation functions, that is, the rail, you know the
rail, what they call the railroad department, all the
cranes in the place, the forklift trucks and steel mis
cellaneous, storage in the steelyard, do you know that
has been proposed in the collective bargaining?
A Well, under the forklift operators where they were
in the transportation department which would come
under— they were steel storage. So they tried to com
bine them all in the transportation department which
would come under the head of crane operator hook-on
and all that.
Q You know that that has been a proposal that has
been made?
A That’s right.
60
Q And one operational advantage you can have the
same crane operator go from one end to the other
[3613] which they don’t do now, is that right?
A That’s right.
Q All that has been discussed, hasn’t it?
A While I was in there, it has.
Q Let me ask you if the union and the union mem
bership hasn’t uniformly opposed this for the same reason
they are opposing any such merger?
A We have uniform proposals to them, and also we
have rejected some of the proposals that they brought
up.
Q It has been proposed and talked about different
kinds of mergers, but somebody is always going to get
hurt, and they—the membership won’t go along with it,
that is true, isn’t it, Mr. Hammonds?
A Well, you can’t help everybody and you can’t hurt
everybody.
Q That’s right. And let me ask you, Mr. Hammonds,
if you go to tinkering with that from the operational
standpoint, you have got to view whether it makes sense
to help you build cars, don’t you?
A All that has to be taken into consideration.
Q From the employees’ standpoint, you have got to
figure out what affect it is going to have on the [3614]
employees, don’t you?
A Right.
Q And both of those are very important in that,
aren’t they?
A Sure.
Q And let me ask you this, those things, when they
come up, they have been the subject of serious discus
sions and as far as you are concerned good faith efforts
by both union and the company to work something out?
A Yeah. Anything that we thought was—would cause
any trouble legally, what I mean from—we may have
to face the EEOC or the office of compliance department
61
as far as the union is concerned, and we would contact
the international along with the international lawyer
representative of the firm to see the best way to go.
* * * *
[3616] Q How many times has the question of a mer
ger of departments been put to the full membership of
the union per vote?
A What do you mean? By entire program?
Q That’s right.
A We have had it come up ourselves I would say
about three times.
Q And have the votes on these mergers been unani
mous?
A The one that we did have, sure.
Q There have been no opposition votes whatsoever?
A No one voted against.
X - -X - * *
[3840] RALPH JONES,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
* * * *
Q Where do you work?
A Pullman-Standard.
Q When did you come to work there?
A 1945.
* * # -X-
[3850] Q Was there an occasion, Mr. Jones, when you
discussed the possibility of your transfer to another de
partment?
A Yes.
Q What department was it?
A To the maintenance department.
Q How did that discussion come about?
A I was asked by Mr. Debrow would I consider be
ing a millwright, and I told him I would. And later on
I was called down to the office, and Mr. Crotwell told me
62
that the two presidents [3851] wouldn’t agree for me
to interchange unions. And I in turn went back and
talked to Mr. Miles about it. And he said he didn’t know
anything about it. He didn’t even know that I was be
ing considered for millwright. So then I was called back
down again and asked to be a mechanic. I had prior
schooling as a mechanic. And Mr. Crotwell, after he—
after the conversation was over, he told me, he said,
well, Ralph, I’m sorry, but they just won’t let you in
terchange unions, but if you find me a good nigger that
is mechanical minded and can learn, you write him a
note, and I will hire him.
# * * *
[3853] Q Let me ask you if Mr. Crotwell said any
thing to you when you were discussing going to be a
millwright to the effect that you—-about what your sen-
nority status would be if you did go over there?
A He told me, said you could work over there two
years, and I understood that part that is in the contract
and all of that was well and good with me, and after I
indicated that I didn’t mind that, then he told me that
the president wouldn’t allow me to interchange local
unions.
Q That is all he told you was he just would not allow
you to change unions?
A That is what he told me, that the two presidents
had agreed upon.
Q And he didn’t say anything about seniority in
connection with changing union membership or [3854]
anything like that?
A Oh, yeah. He told me that I would be the youngest
man in the department on the seniority list. Well, I
understood that in the beginning.
* * * *
[3861] Q Now, you told Mr. demon about your at
tempt [3862] to get a millwright job and your conver
63
sation with Mr. Crotwell, Mr. Jones. As I understand
your testimony, Mr. Crotwell tried to put it on the two
local unions as the reason to tell you why you couldn’t
get that job by telling you that the local presidents would
not let you switch unions?
A That’s right.
Q Do you know whether or not as a matter of fact
the company has anything to do with whether or not an
employee belongs to one union or another?
A No, I don’t.
Q In fact, Mr. Minor indicated to you that it really
wasn’t any of the company’s business who belonged to
what union, didn’t he?
A No. He said he didn’t know, even know anything
about it.
Q He just said that he— did he tell you that he had
not told Crotwell that you couldn’t switch unions and
he didn’t know you were interested in the job?
A That’s right.
Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Ed Davidson then, who
was the I AM local president?
[3863] A No, I didn’t.
* * * *
[4045] THE COURT:
Also, I think it would be of some value if the Court
indicated of record what appear to be the races or colors
of the various witnesses who have testified. Sometimes
that is brought [4046] out in examination and sometimes
it is not. If counsel would follow with me on my nota
tions as I read them into the record, and if there is any
questions about it, you can correct my notation. These,
I believe, are in the order in which they have testified:
J. R. Hudson, white; Henry Thompson, black; Alvester
Braxton, black; Sam Maxwell, black; Matthew Hunter,
black; Spurgeon Seals, black; Kie Bates, black; Edward
Lofton, black; Richard Davis, black; Hugh Wilson, black;
Edgar Davis, black; Harvest Morgan, black; Samuel
64
Thomas, black; John Hampton, black; Jessie Heard,
black; L. D. Holmes, black; Albert Johnson, black; Junior
Wormley, black; Leonard Lewis, black; Katrina Mitchell,
black; Fred Baltimore, black; Tommy Williams, black;
Willie James Johnson, black; Clyde Humphrey, black;
Louis Swint, black; Louis Pinkard, black; Donald Fred
erick, white; Franklin Snyder, white; Clyde Robertson,
white; Harry Debrow, black; Henry Vann, black; John
London, black; Dick Snyder, white; Thomas Blazer,
white; Miles Ward, black; Walter Whitehurst, white;
Paul Walker, black; James Moss, white; F. R. Rodriguez,
white or [4047] Spanish surnamed; Austin Cain, white;
Alfred Moorer, black; Bill Eddings, white; William Poe,
white; Colin Clemons, white; Leullen LeShoure, black;
Harry Crane, white; Fred Cottrell, black; William J.
Harris, white; George Johnston, white; Fred Prince,
black; Fount Hammock, white; Fred Hull, white; Ross
Hammonds, black; Albert Wolff, white; Gerald McCar-
roll, black; Willie Lewis, black; Ralph Jones, black;
Theodore Sparks, black; Willie Thomas, black; Samuel
Thomas, black; Walter Hinton, black; Eugene McGee,
black; Robert Northfleet, black; Bobby Arnold, black;
A. C. Cole, black; Virgil Northfleet, black; George Wash
ington, black; William C. Harris, black; L. D. Holmes,
black; and according to my records this covers each of
the witnesses.
* *
65
EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT 1974 TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 55
COMPARATIVE JOB CLASSES OF
PULLMAN-STANDARD PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES WITH MORE THAN SIX YEARS OF
SENIORITY AS OF JUNE, 1973
Non-Incentive
Hourly
Wage Rate
Job Class As of 10/1/73 Whites Blacks Total
1 $3,635 0 6 6
2 3.635 0 4 4
3 3.733 1 0 1
4 3.831 10 63 73
5 3.929 3 45 48
6 4.027 67 302 369
7 4.125 6 50 56
8 4.223 31 82 113
9 4.321 25 43 68
10 4.419 450 57 507
11 4.517 29 68 97
12 4.615 29 14 43
13 4.713 30 2 32
14 4.811 0 1 1
15 4.909 27 2 29
16 5.007 15 3 18
17 5.105 1 0 1
18 5.203 23 1 24
20 5.399 6 0 6
753 743 1497
% of Black employees earning less than $4.25 hourly
(Job Class 8 or below) : 74.1%
% o f White employees earning more than $4.40 hourly
(Job Class 10 or above) : 80.7%
% of Black employees earning more than $4.40 hourly
(Job Class. 10 or above) : 19.9%
% of White employees earning less than $4.25 hourly
(Job Class 8 or below) : 15.8%
66
COMPANY EX. 309
Pullman-Standard— Bessemer ;
Swint and Johnson vs. Pullman-Standard
Racial Statistics on P&M Steelworkers Union
Officers, Committeemen and Stewards from 1965
to Date
Bessemer— April 4,1973
CONFIDENTIAL
MR. F. B. SNYDER:
In accordance with your memorandum of February 14,
1973, I am sending the attached information concerning
the above subject.
This report shows that there was a majority of Negro
Union Department Shop Stewards during the period of
time involved. In addition, Mr. J. Mautman Herring,
who was President of the local Steelworkers Union for
approximately 22 years and a Union Committeeman for
approximately 30 years, has stated that there were more
Negro Union Shop Stewards during the many years he
served in an official capacity for the Steelworkers Union.
The report also shows that the office of President, Chair
man of the Grievance Committee, Acting President, Vice
President, Financial Secretary and Grievance Committee
man has been held by a Negro.
/ s / J. R. Hudson
J. R. Hudson
Bessemer— March 12,1973
Mr. J. Mautman Herring, Badge No. 2633, who was
President of Local Union No. 1466 (Steelworkers) for
approximately 22 years, and a Union Committeeman for
approximately 30 years, made the statement that during
that period of time, there were more Negro Union Shop
Stewards than Caucasian Union Shop Stewards.
/ s / J. R. Hudson
67
1965
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
28 13 15
1966
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
28 13 15
Through June, 1967
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
28 13 15
From July, 1967
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
32 9 23
1968
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
32 9 23
1969
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
32 9 23
Through June, 1970
Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
32 9 23
68
From July, 1970
Officers Caucasian Negro
6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
33 10 23
1971
Officers Caucasian Negro
6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
39 13 26
Through February, 1972
Officers Caucasian Negro
6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
39 13 26
From March, 1972
Officers Caucasian Negro
6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
39 13 26
1973
Officers Caucasian Negro
6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
40 14 26
69
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS— 1965
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring C
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds; N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson N
TREASURER
Badge No. 2651 Earl Walls C
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2306 John H. Porter, Jr. C
SHOP STEWARDS— 1965
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2853
Badge No. 2734
Badge No. 1654
Badge No. 1655
Badge No. 2641
Badge No. 1637
Badge No. 1643
Badge No. 2872
Wilburn L. Lanier
Jack Posey
Henry Vann, Jr.
Neal Bell
Robert C. Grimes
Robert Mosely
Gus Levins
Felton H. White
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 692 0 . J. Gilbert
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No. 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No. 3358 James C. Blackmon
PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No*. 849 Sam West
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker
Badge No. 508 William Jordan
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1859 William F. Wilkes
3
o
3
o
o
o
3
3
o
3
3
o
3
3
o
o
70
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton N
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson N
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson N
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon C
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter N
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr C
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N
WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge C
PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright C
POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs C
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS— 1966
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring C
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson N
TREASURER
Badge No. 2651 Earl Walls C
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2306 John H. Porter, Jr. c
71
SHOP STEWARDS:— 1966
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1839 William F. Wilkes
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope
WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge
PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright
POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2853
Badge No. 2734
Badge No. 1654
Badge No. 1655
Badge No. 2641
Badge No. 1637
Badge No:. 1643
Badge No. 2872
Wilburn. L. Lanier
Jack Posey
Henry Vann, Jr.
Neal Bell
Robert C. Grimes
Robert Mosley
Gus Levins
Felton H. White
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 692 0 . J. Gilbert
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No. 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No. 3358 James C. Blackmon
£
£
£
£
a
0
2
0
&
G
O
O
G
G
£ £ G
£
£ G
£
£
G
O
O
72
P U N C H , S H E A R A N D P R E S S D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 849
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 508
Sam West
Glenn Acker
William Jordan
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1967
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson
TREASURER
Badge No. 2651
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2306
Earl Walls
John H. Porter, Jr.
SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH JUNE, 1967
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2853
Badge No. 2734
Badge No. 1654
Badge No. 1655
Badge No, 2641
Badge No, 1637
Badge No, 1643
Badge No. 2872
Wilburn L. Lanier
Jack Posey
Henry Vann, Jr.
Neal Bell
Robert C. Grimes
Robert Mosley
Gus Levins
Felton H. White
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 692 O. J. Gilbert
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No, 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No, 3358 James C. Blackmon O
O
O
^
Z
o
^
o
^
^
o
o
a
a
2
Z
o
73
PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 849 Sam West
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker
Badge No. 508 William Jordan
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1839 William F. Wilkes
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N
WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge C
PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright C
POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs C
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS FROM JULY, 1967
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N
o
^
o
sej
szj
s;
izs
a;
'Z
o
'Z
74
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No.. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C
SHOP STEWARDS FROM JULY, 1967
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2872
Badge No. 2703
Badge No. 1676
Badge No. 1619
Badge No. 2970
Felton White
Horace Logan
Joe Gray
Fayette Dudley
R. L. Benton
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3325 W. B. Hartley
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott
PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Balge No. 563
Badge No. 530
Badge No. 508
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 2541
Badge No. 1102
Badge No. 503
Willie Simmons
William Jones
Willie Jordan
Glen Acker
J. P. Williams
Henry Clayton
Joe Carlton
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones
WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William. Winder
Badge No.. 2178 Ed Beck
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No.. 1867
Badge No.. 1376
Badge No. 948
Badge No. 307
Manual Cleveland
Cleo E. Campbell
Robert L. Williams
Craig Paulding
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N
3
^
3
3
0
^
0
3
2
;
3
3
0
0
3
3
3
o
o
3
3
o
3
3
o
o
75
PAINT DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson
Badge No. 436 Herman Torrence
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE!
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS— 1968
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel
SHOP STEWARDS— 1968
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2872
Badge No. 2703
Badge No. 1676
Badge No. 1619
Badge No. 2970
Felton White
Horace Logan
Joe Gray
Fayette Dudley
R. L. Benton
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover 3
3
o
3
3
O
a
o
o
3
^
o
■
z
s;
z
z
3
3
76
M A IN T E N A N C E D E P A R T M E N T
Badge No. 3325
Badge No. 3474
PUNCH, SHEAR AND
Badge No. 563
Badge No-. 530
Badge No-. 508
Badge No. 2483
Badge No, 2541
Badge No, 1102
Badge No, 503
W. B. Hartley
W. J. Sco-tt
PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Willie Simmons
William Jones
Willie Jordan
Glen Acker
J. P. Williams
Henry Clayton
Joe Carlton
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones
WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No, 2178 Ed Beck
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867
Badge No, 1376
Badge No. 948
Badge No, 307
Manual Cleveland
Cleo E. Campbell
Robert L. Williams
Craig Paulding
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Nathanial Pope-
Henry Moo-re
Willie Johnson
Herman Torrence-
Badge No. 346
PAINT DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486
Badge No, 484
Badge No. 436
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 923 Theado-re Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff N
3
%
'Z
'Z
'Z
%
2
2
3
2
o
^
o
o
o
77
UNION OFFICERS— 1969
U N IT E D S T E E L W O R K E R S O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N A N D M A IN T E N A N C E E M P L O Y E E S
L O C A L U N IO N N O . 1466
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C
SHOP STEWARDS— 1969
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2872
Badge No. 2703
Badge No. 1676
Badge No. 1619
Badge No, 2970
Felton White
Horace Logan
Joe Gray
Fayette Dudley
R. L. Benton
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No, 1811 Calvin Glover
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3326 W. B. Hartley
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott
PUNCH. SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 530
Badge No. 508
Badge No. 2483
Badge No, 2541
Badge No. 1102
Badge No. 503
Willie Simmons
William Jones
Willie Jordan
Glen Acker
J. P. Williams
Henry Clayton
Joe Carlton
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones a;
a;
a;
^
o
o
a;
3
a;
o
o
o
^
a
;o
o
78
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No. 2178 Ed Beck
W H E E L A N D A X L E D E P A R T M E N T
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867
Badge No. 1376
Badge No. 948
Badge No. 307
Manual Cleveland
Cleo E. Campbell
Robert L. Williams
Craig Paulding
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope
PAINT DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486
Badge No. 484
Badge No. 436
Henry Moore
Willie Johnson
Herman Torrence
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas. L. Ratcliff N
UNITED STEELWORKERS. OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1970
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
2
o
79
SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH JUNE, 1970
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2872
Badge No. 2703
Badge No. 1676
Badge No. 1619
Badge No. 2970
Felton White
Horace Logan
Joe Gray
Fayette Dudley
R. L. Benton
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3326 W. B. Hartley
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott
PUNCH. SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 530
Badge No. 508
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 2541
Badge No. 1102
Badge No*. 503
Willie Simmons
William Jones
Willie Jordan
Glen Acker
J. P. Williams
Henry Clayton
Joe Carlton
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones
WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No. 2178 Ed Beck
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867
Badge No. 1376
Badge No. 948
Badge No. 307
Manual Cleveland
Cleo E. Campbell
Robert L. Williams
Craig Paulding
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope
PAINT DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486
Badge No. 484
Badge No. 436
Henry Moore
Willie Johnson
Herman Torrence 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
o
3
o
3
3
3
3
o
o
3
3
3
G
O
3
3
o
3
3
o
o
80
S T E E L S T O R E S D E P A R T M E N T
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller N
Badge No'. 1162 Donald Foreman N
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff N
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
UNION OFFICERS FROM JULY, 1970
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 1603 Perry L. Thompson N
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN
Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins C
SHOP STEWARDS FROM JULY, 1970
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell N
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder N
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy C
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas C
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton N
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry N
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard N
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris N
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox N
81
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge No. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens
M A IN T E N A N C E D E P A R T M E N T
PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 580
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 555
Badge No. 1102
Glenn Acker
Robert Murry
William Simmons
Robert Sanders
Henry Clayton
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers
FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canales.
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson
PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4970 William C. Boyd
Badge No. 2958 Henry Hogg o
n
o
3
2
3
2
Z
a
Z
Z
^
2
Z
o
q
a
Z
82
UNION OFFICERS— 1971
U N IT E D S T E E L W O R K E R S O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N A N D M A IN T E N A N C E E M P L O Y E E S
L O C A L U N IO N N O . 1466
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 1603 Perry L. Thompson N
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN
Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins
SHOP STEWARDS— 1971
C
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell N
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder N
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy C
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas c
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton N
Badge No. 3566 Earl Baldwin C
Badge No. 4720 L. E. Walker c
Badge No. 3530 Arval L. Hulsey c
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge No. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens o
3
3
3
3
3
3
PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker C
Badge No. 580 Robert Murry N
Badge No. 563 William Simmons N
Badge No. 555 Robert Sanders N
Badge No. 1102 Henry Clayton N
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers C
FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds C
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter N
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor N
Badge No. 1868 0. J. Herndon N
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns N
Badge No. 1832 Henry B. Moore N
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy N
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore N
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canoles C
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson N
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman N
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff N
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson N
PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas N
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright C
83
IN S P E C T IO N D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam C. Boyd C
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg C
84
UNION OFFICERS THROUGH FEBRUARY, 1972
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
U N IT E D S T E E L W O R K E R S O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N A N D M A IN T E N A N C E E M P L O Y E E S
L O C A L U N IO N N O . 1466
Badge No. 1603
VICE PRESIDENT
Perry L. Thompson
(Retired February, 1972)
N
Badge No. 982
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Ross Hammonds N
Badge No. 1022
RECORDING SECRETARY
Willie Key N
Badge No. 2010
TREASURER
Chesley E. Kimbrel C
Badge No. 3331
COMMITTEEMAN
Henry L. Taylor C
Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins c
SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH FEBRUARY, 1972
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder
(Deceased 10-24-72)
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton
Badge No. 3566 Earl Baldwin
Badge No. 4720 L. E. Walker
Badge No. 3530 Arval L. Hulsey
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge N o. 1773 Eugene M cGee
Badge N o. 3377 B illy Joe Pickens
o
o
o
^
o
o
Z
Z
85
P U N C H , S H E A R A N D P R E S S D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No, 2483
Badge No. 580
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 555
Badge No-. 1102
Glenn Acker
Robert Murry
William Simmons
Robert Sanders
Henry Clayton
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers
FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No-. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No, 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No, 1832 Henry B. Moore
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 486
Badge No. 4550
Badge No. 484
Badge No, 472
Henry Moore
Orville Canoles
Willie Johnson
Edward Lofton
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson
PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No, 3614 Clayton Wright
IN S P E C T IO N D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam C, Boyd
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg Q
O
a
Z
3
2
Z
Z
Z
a
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
o
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
86
UNION OFFICERS FROM MARCH, 1972
U N IT E D S T E E L W O R K E R S O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N A N D M A IN T E N A N C E E M P L O Y E E S
L O C A L U N IO N N O . 1466
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN
Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins c
SHOP STEWARDS FROM MARCH, 1972
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655
Badge No. 1621
Badge No. 2851
Badge No. 4946
Badge No. 1027
Badge No. 3566
Badge No. 4720
Badge No. 3530
Neal Bell
Dennis McGruder
(Deceased 10-24-72)
J. C. Kennedy
H. M. Thomas
Fred Hampton
Earl Baldwin
L. E. Walker
Arval L. Hulsey
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge N o. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge N o. 3377 B illy Joe Pickens o
2
2
3
2
2
2
o
o
o
2
o
o
3
2
87
P U N C H , S H E A R A N D P R E S S D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 580
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 555
Badge No. 1102
Glenn Acker
Robert Murry
William Simmons
Robert Sanders
Henry Clayton
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers
FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No>. 1832 Henry B. Moore
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486
Badge No. 4550
Badge: No. 484
Badge No. 472
Henry Moore
Orville Canoles
Willie Johnson
Edward Lofton
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson
PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright
IN S P E C T IO N D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam C. Boyd
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg
C
N
O
Q
0
3
3
3
3
^
^
0
2
3
3
a
O
3
3
3
88
U N IT E D S T E E L W O R K E R S O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N A N D M A IN T E N A N C E E M P L O Y E E S
L O C A L U N IO N N O . 1466
UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1973
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE
Badge No. 982
VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 1162
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
Badge No. 1022
RECORDING SECRETARY
Badge No. 2010
TREASURER
Badge No. 3331
COMMITTEEMAN
Badge No. 298
Ross Hammonds N
Donald Foreman N
Willie Key N
Chesley E. Kimbrel C
Henry L. Taylor C
William T. Adkins c
SHOP STEWARDS'—1973
WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655
Badge No. 2851
Badge No. 4946
Badge No. 1027
Badge No. 3566
Badge No. 4720
Badge No. 3530
Badge No. 220
Neal Bell
J. C. Kennedy
H. M. Thomas
Fred Hampton
Earl Baldwin
L. E. Walker
Arval L. Hulsey
Larry McCullough
STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard
STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 322 A. G. Richardson
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge N o. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens 0
2
o
o
o
o
S
J
o
o
^
89
P U N C H , S H E A R A N D P R E S S D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 2483
Badge No. 580
Badge No. 563
Badge No. 555
Badge No. 1102
Glenn Acker
Robert Murry
William Simmons
Robert Sanders
Henry Clayton
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Jack Rodgers
Jerell S. Hammonds
Matthew Hunter
Badge No. 2172
FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585
Badge No. 1305
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No. 1832 Henry B. Moore
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy
PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canoles
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson
Badge No. 472 Edward Lofton
STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman
TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff
MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson
PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4970 William C. Boyd
Badge No. 2958 Henry Hogg
O
fr'ZZ'Z,
O
o
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0
0
PULLMAN- STAN DARD
B e s s e m e r Plant
C
O
M
PA
N
Y E
X
. 351
91
TRANSCRIPT OF 1978 TRIAL
[17] MR. CLEMONS: Your Honor, we would now like
to call as our first witness Mr. Thomas.
SAMUEL THOMAS, JR.,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. CLEMONS:) Mr. Thomas, will you
state to the Court your full name?
A Samuel Thomas, Jr.
Q Where do you live, Mr. Thomas?
A Route 4, Box 55.
Q Are you employed by Pullman-Standard?
[18] A Yeah.
Q When did you go to work for Pullman?
A ’46, January 2.
Q Was that at the Bessemer plant?
A Bessemer plant.
Q Are you a member of a union?
A Yeah.
Q What union are you a member of?
A 1466.
Q How long have you been a member of the union?
A Ever since ’46.
Q Have you attended union meetings?
A Yeah.
Q Mr. Thomas, was there a time when union meet
ings were segregated?
A Yeah.
Q Would you describe how the segregation worked?
A Well, on the picnic they give on Labor Day, well,
we will have our picinics would be in different places.
The whites would be in one place, and the blacks in the
other.
* * * *
92
Q Were there any social activities sponsored by the
union on a segregated basis?
[19] A Well, I can’t recall that. I don’t know.
Q At union meetings did blacks and whites sit to
gether?
A No.
Q Where did the blacks sit?
A They sat on one side, and we had one side.
* * * *
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER:) Mr. Thomas,
the seating arrangement is the same as we have here
today?
A Yeah.
* * * *
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Mr. Thomas, the
local union has not held any picnics since sometime dur
ing the 1950’s, have they?
A Yeah, that is right.
* * * *
[20] THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, throughout the per
iod that the picnics were held until sometime in the
fifties, were they held as you have described, that is, one
place for whites and one place for blacks?
A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Now insofar as the meetings are
concerned, you have said that for some period of time
the meetings were segregated in that whites sat on one
side of the union hall and blacks sat on another?
A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Has that continued to be the case
even at the present date?
A No. They sit like they want to now.
THE COURT: About how long has it been that you
have noticed that the whites would sit on both sides and
blacks on both sides?
93
A Well, that has been since— I would say since we
had that trial up here. I can’t recall the time. Back
in ’74.
THE COURT: Now prior to ’74, back in the sixties,
was there any actual attempt made by blacks to sit on
what had been the white side or did it just continue the
way prior practice had [21] developed?
A Well, no, they couldn’t sit over there. They just
didn’t go over there.
THE COURT: When you say they just couldn’t do
it, did anybody ever try it?
A Well, asked the president, and they would tell
him three times seven is twenty-one, and they want to
know what to do, and that is the only answer he would
give.
THE COURT: Say that again.
A They would ask the president, and he would say
three times seven is twenty-one, and they know what
they want to do about it.
THE COURT: What did that mean?
A I don’t know. That is all he would tell us.
THE COURT: Three times seven is twenty-one?
A Yes. That means you’re grown, I guess.
THE COURT: It means what?
A You’re grown. You are a man. That is what I get
out of it.
THE COURT: You understood him to say that
people were grown men, and they would do what they
want to do?
[22] A That is right.
THE COURT: Was this when some question came up
as to whether it was all right to sit on both sides of the
aisle, or whatever it was?
A No, it wasn’t all right. We couldn’t do it— prob
ably they would do something to us, I guess. They just
say we couldn’t sit over there. So we just went and sat
where we sat at.
94
THE COURT: How did it ever come up; was it in
some union meeting where somebody got up and said
why are we sitting like this, why can’t we sit on the
other side of the aisle? Was this what happened?
A Well, when we went to the union meetings, the
president told us we couldn’t sit over there. Said there
is a white side and a black side.
THE COURT: And who was the president at that
time?
A Paul Henn.
THE COURT: Was he white or black?
A White.
THE COURT: There have been periods of time, have
there not, that blacks have served as officers of the
union?
A Well, the secretary and vice president [23] I be
lieve sometimes in the sixties, I believe— in the fifties.
THE COURT: In the fifties there were blacks who
served as vice president and secretary?
A Yeah.
THE COURT: Well, actually even since the fifties,
have there not been blacks who served as officers as well
as whites who served as officers?
A Yeah. Blacks have been serving.
THE COURT: Has this been pretty much contin
uously since the 1950’s that there have been both blacks
and whites served?
A Well, there have been about I would say about
half.
THE COURT: About half the officers were white and
about half of the officers were black?
A Yeah.
THE COURT: Insofar as voting on any matters
and insofar as talking in the union meetings about mat
ters of both whites and blacks, had the opportunity to
speak and to vote?
A Yeah.
95
THE COURT: So far as you noticed, was there any
distinction made between the way a white could speak
and vote and the way a black could speak [24] and
vote?
A They all could speak and vote, yeah.
THE COURT: Now on the negotiating groups, when
there were the collective bargaining agreements came up,
were there both whites and blacks on those negotiating
groups or just whites or just blacks or what?
A That would be something in the contract, wouldn’t
it? Negotiations would be like a contract, wouldn’t it?
THE COURT: Right.
A Well, blacks and whites would leave. They would
go.
THE COURT: I believe that is all. I, of course, am
aware we have documentary evidence in terms of the—
who the officers of the union and stewards have been, as
well as their races over the years that was introduced in
the last trial. And I have that available to me. But I
wanted to inquire of this particular witness.
* * *
[25] RECROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Mr. Thomas, I
understood you to say you went to work at Pullman in
January of 1946?
A That is right.
Q Did you know Mr. Perry Thompson at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Mr. Gus Dickerson?
A Yes.
Q Were they either officers or on the contract ne
gotiating committee when you came to work at Pullman?
A Yeah.
Q And they are both black men, aren’t they?
A Yes.
Q Did you know Mr. E. B. Jackson?
A Edward Jackson?
96
Q Right.
A Yes.
Q Was he a black man?
[26] A Yeah.
Q Was he also on the committee when you came to
Pullman in ’46?
A Yeah. There were some in the union.
* * *- *
[26] THE COURT: Is it your recollection that gen
erally when the union was discussing and considering
contracts and changes in rules, that the whites [27] and
blacks usually voted the same way or were there times
when white union members would vote pretty much all
one way and black union members would pretty much
vote all another way?
A Well, I don’t know about that. All I know is they
stand when they vote.
THE COURT: Do you ever recall any kind of issue
coming up during contract times or rules times where
the blacks voted pretty much to a plan one way, and the
whites voted pretty much to a plan the other way?
A I can’t recall that.
* * * *
[27] WILLIE JAMES JOHNSON,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
* *- *
[30] Mr. Johnson, did you attend union meetings back
in the fifties and sixties?
A Yes, I did. Beginning of ’66 up until now.
Q At that time was the seating segregated?
A Yes, they were.
Q Were there separate restroom facilities [31] for
blacks and whites at the union hall?
A Yes, there were.
Q Likewise at the company was there segregated
facilities?
A Right.
97
Q Drinking facilities?
A Drinking facilities, bathrooms, locker rooms, every
thing was segregated.
Q How long did those segregated facilities at the
company last?
A Until approximately June or July, 1967.
Q How long did the segregated facilities, that is, the
restroom facilities at the local union last?
A Until about the same time.
Q Do you recall any discussions at a union meeting
concerning a grievance of black workers?
A Grievance?
Q Yes.
A Yeah. We had an undiscriminatory contract had
been negotiated in our basic contract.
Q When was this?
A In ’63. And we had questioned the president about
segregated job assignments at the plant. And he would
always tell us, well, we have got white [32] jobs be
cause you’re going to stay on the black jobs, and the
whites are going to maintain the white jobs. So about
March of 1963, thirteen black employees were dropped,
laid off, I mean, and thirteen junior whites remained in
the plant. So we thirteen black employees filed a thir
teen grievance saying the company was discriminating.
And when we came to the union meeting that Tuesday
night, the president, when he called the meeting to order,
he had the thirteen grievances. And he held them up in
his hand, and he said, I have thirteen grievances here,
racial grievances that have been filed by thirteen black
employees out in the plant against the company. And he
criticized those thirteen black employees for filing such
grievance. And I want the rank and file to tell me
whether or not to tear these grievances up or process
them. Well, one white man got up and made a motion
that he tear them up. But we had the majority that
night of blacks, and we voted it down, and made a mo
98
tion to process the grievances. And we did win the vote.
But the president did not process the grievances. And
later we went to the National Labor Relations Board
and filed discrimination charges there. At that same
night the secretary was Gus Dickerson.
[33] Q Was Gus Dickerson a black man?
A Yes, he was a black man. But he got up and told
us he was not going to process a racial grievance. It
wasn’t time for it, and he wasn’t going to do it.
Q In your occupation as a member of the union dur
ing the fifties and early sixties, Mr. Johnson, did the
black union officials press racial grievances or complaints
of racial grievances at this time?
A No. They would always say there wasn’t time for
it.
Q The president of the union is now a black man, is
he not?
A Yes, he is.
Q When did the union elect its first black president?
A In 1970,1 think it was.
Q Who was that?
A Perry L. Thompson.
Q At that time had anybody ever run for president
and lost?
A Yes. Perry had ran a number of times before.
Q I take it blacks had served as president— I’m sorry,
as secretary, financial secretary and [34] vice president
of the local?
A Yes, they have.
* * * *
[52] MR. STELZENMULLER: This chart contains
certain other information. I would like to explain it,
because I think it would be helpful to follow through
that mass of documents.
As shown on the chart, the sources are given for the
information contained in 1941 voting lists which is in
evidence. The annual overtime bonus summaries for the
99
years ’41 through ’46, those are in evidence. The United
Steelworkers checkoff list for 1946 which is in evidence.
The seniority lists for 1947 to date, and the union con
tracts themselves. I think all we may have missed— did
we miss any, Frank, or getting all— do we have an un
broken series of all the contracts—wTe have pretty close
to it anyway.
The chart shows several things. It shows depart
ments and changes in the name or changes in the iden
tity of them from the period of 1941 up to now.
It shows the different bargaining units, because there
have been several changes in there that we think are
material as showing how certain [53] groups got broken
out of other groups. Sometimes it was by reason of the
NLRB’s certifying in certain ways. It also shows changes
in the seniority system at the Bessemer plant over that
period, as shown by the key, the little gold dots, a couple
of them on there indicate the IBEW bargaining unit.
The columns are different points of time where a change
took place. Not every year is indicated, because not every
year was any change. The two gold dots up here signify
the electrical, and had in there the NLRB’s certification
and were covered in their first union contract. As shown
by the chart, the IBEW was decertified in 1946, where
upon the electricians went back into the maintenance
department of United Steelworkers where they had been
broken out. They became represented by the United
Steelworkers and the power house which was that group
of people also that went back into the steelworkers unit.
But that didn’t occur until June 1, ’47.
Inasmuch as, and I will explain what the row of black
dots mean. The significant thing occurred then.
The silver dots are the International Association of
Machinists which are shown on the chart, [54] originally
had five groups of people in the unit, that which is now
called maintenance IAM, die and tool, wheel and axel,
and the air brake pipe shop.
100
In 1944 this column shows when the IBE— the IAM
certification was changed. There is testimony, I think,
in Mr. Herring’s deposition, of how that came about.
At that time the machinists also— the NLRB changed
these three groups out of the IAM and in to the United
Steelworkers bargaining unit. For that reason they are
shown with red dots. The red dots signifying, accord
ing to the key, United Steelworkers while departmental
seniority prevailed, which it did at that time.
Finally the black dots refer to United Steelworkers
departments or groups where occupational seniority pre
vails. Because for a period of time from June 1, 1947, to
September 1, 1954, there was no departmental seniority
system of the type that exists now, but seniority was
applied by occupations which actually amount to clas
sification within departments as shown on the charts.
The International Association of Machinists which still
represents unbrokenly represented certain maintenance
employees and certain die and tool employees. They have
always had a classification seniority system where [55]
insofar as layoffs, recalls and the like are concerned,
people are in competition only with members in their
own classification. So there has been no change in IAM.
There was a change in the United Steelworkers and a
change back in 1954 to the departmental system.
Next to the last column is September 1, 1954. The
last column says to present. There have been no changes
at all in this system since that time with one exception,
that this boiler house department, a new department
created September 1, ’54, became vacant. That is as
shown on the 1964 senority list. There have been no
hourly employees in that department since March 2,
1965.
We submit that the chart not only helps you follow
through the different changes, and where different people
came from, but also it will be significant to you in that
it shows whereas there were a number of changes around
101
during the period when the occupational seniority pre
vailed, they didn’t really have anything to do with
seniority.
THE COURT: Let me just interrupt you at this
point on a question I need now is whether or not there
is objection to Exhibit 27. And I would take it that it
would not be objected to. The [56] plaintiff may have a
desire to, in some way, contradict something that is
shown there by virtue of reference to other evidence,
and may not agree with the methodology used. But I
take it it should be received in the same way that Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 110 was received.
MR. CLEMON: Well, Your Honor, we would object
to the portrayal of the truck department as being a CIO
department in 1942. Actually the truck department was
certified as IAM was the truck department, was black
by a letter gave to the CIO department, by the letter
of December 19 ,1 think it was, 1941.
Likewise, we object to the use of overtime bonus
summaries as a basis for determining the departments
that existed under the contracts. Those overtime bonus
summaries, some of them are in evidence elsewhere in
this case in the earlier hearing, and some of those would
show that there is a department known as press, punch
and shear, but in point of fact, we know them to be two
departments. We say that the use of those overtime
bonus summaries, while they might show what—how
the company treated certain units, they don’t show what
the union agreed to and what was provided for in the
contract. That [57] that would be shown by the sen
iority lists which are required to be kept by the contract.
THE COURT: Let me interrupt you just a minute,
Mr. demon.
As I understand it, your Exhibit 110 is based upon
the original voting list and upon the seniority lists that
are 1947 and subsequent.
MR. CLEMON: Yes, sir.
102
THE COURT: And while there may be some dif
ferences between your compilation and this defendant’s
Exhibit 27, with respect to those years, it seems to me
that is just a contradiction of evidence.
MR. CLEMON: That is correct.
THE COURT: The real question becomes the period
of time between 1941 and 1947, and perhaps the sig
nificance of those changes. I really wonder if this is
not an item where the matter should be allowed into
evidence, but you’re perfectly free to contradict or dis
agree with either the methodology or the conclusions to
be drawn therefrom.
MR. CLEMON: Yes, sir. We will withdraw our ob
jection.
THE COURT: Let’s receive Exhibit 27, and it’s not
to be shown as any way binding on the plaintiff.
* * * *
103
EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT 1978 TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 1—FIRST DOCUMENT
[NLRB Voting List— 1941]
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BESSEMER PLANT
EMPLOYEES ON PAYROLL—AUGUST 9th, 1941.
DEPARTMENT WHITE COLORED TOTAL
PLANT PROTECTION 12 — 12
SUPERINTENDENCE 9 4 13
WOOD MILL 16 1 17
LUMBER YARD 29 — 29
WOOD ERECTION 60 26 86
PAINT 29 35 64
SHIPPING TRACK 7 5 12
SAND BLAST — • — —
PUNCH & SHEAR 33 65 98
PRESS 11 33 44
STEEL CONSTRUCTION 39 86 125
STEEL ERECTION 90 255 345
WELDING 50 — 50
WHEEL & AXLE 19 11 30
TRUCK _ 14 14
FORGE 32 26 58
DIE & TOOL 55 2 57
MAINTENANCE 57 13 70
TEMPLATE 3 — 3
STORES 6 1 7
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS 6 73 79
TOTAL HOURLY
EMPLOYEES 563 650 1213
TOTAL SALARIED
EMPLOYEES 55 — 55
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
ON ROLL 618 650 1268
104
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 1—SECOND DOCUMENT
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BESSEMER PLANT
SUPERINTENDENCE DEPARTMENT
COLORED
BADGE
OR
WHITE NAME
RE
OCCUPATION MARKS
171 Col. Herman Hayes Janitor
172 Col. Edgar Sanders Dispensary Aid
173 Col. Letcher Pickens Laborer
175 Col. Albert G. Wynn Janitor
201 White Oscar Morris Bryan Blue Print Operator
Tracer
202 White James C. Sutherland Jr. Clerk
203 White James W. Bonham Blue Print Operator
204 White Rose Lee Jacobs P.B.X. Operator &
Stenographer
205 White John E. Loveless, Jr. Blue Print Boy
206 White Dorothy B. Windsor Stenographer
207 White John F. Suttle Co-op Student
209 White Newman Rex Huey Inspector
210 White Harold W. Falter Sample Car Man
105
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 13
[1] BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TENTH REGION
X-R-468
In the Matter of :
Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co.
and
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, (CIO).
Court Room, Federal Building,
Birmingham, Alabama,
Thursday, August 28, 1941.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pur
suant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m.
BEFORE:
JOHN C. McREE, Trial Examiner.
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM E. MITCH, Jr., 920 Massey Building,
appearing for Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
Local No. 1466, Birmingham, Ala.
NOEL R. BEDDOW, Steiner Building, appearing for
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local 1466,
Birmingham, Ala.
JELKS H. CABANISS, First National Bank Building,
Birmingham, Alabama, appearing for Pullman
Standard Car Manufacturing Company.
J. R. MAY, 1008 Carter Hill Road, Montgomery, Ala
bama, appearing for International Brotherhood of
106
Electrical Workers, Local Union #B-287, P.O. Box
2377, Birmingham, Alabama.
J. H. HOWARD, Machinists’ Building, Washington,
D.C., appearing for International Association of
Machinists.
[2] J. D. BAUMGARDNER, 209 Clark Building, Bir
mingham, Alabama, appearing for International As
sociation of Machinists.
J. L. GIGLIO, 500 Lyric Building, Birmingham, Ala
bama, appearing for Federal Labor Union, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, 500 Lyric
Building, Birmingham, Alabama.
[3] PROCEEDINGS
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: The hearing will
come to order.
This is a formal hearing in the matter of Pullman-
Standard Car Manufacturing Company and Steel Work
ers Organizing Committee, Case No. X-R-468, before the
National Labor Relations Board.
•Sf * * *
[4] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Both you and
Mr. Baumgardner are appearing for the International
Association of Machinists?
MR. HOWARD: That is correct.
[12] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: It is stipulated
and agreed by and between the Pullman-Standard Car
Manufacturing Company and the Trial Examiner for
the purpose of this hearing only, that the Pullman-
Standard Car Manufacturing Company operates a plant
at Bessemer, in Jefferson County, Alabama; that the
107
said company is a corporation under the laws of the
State of Delaware, qualified to do business as a foreign
corporation in the state of Alabama.
The said company, during the week ended August 9,
1941, had on its payrolls, in connection with its operations
at said plant, a total of 1268 employes.
The company is engaged in the manufacture of rail
road cars. Its current production is at the rate of about
27 box cars made of wood and steel, and 20 all-steel or
hopper cars per work day. All cars, after manufacture
is completed, are delivered f.o.b. Bessemer to Class I
railroads engaged in interstate commerce.
* * * *
[27] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I think it is
advisable at the outset of the hearing, so we can possibly
save some time, for the intervening unions to make a
statement, if they are in position to do so at this time,
as to what their contention is as to the appropriate
bargaining unit or units.
Of course, we have the petitioning union outlining its
position in its petition, that is, that the unit should
consist of an industrial unit in which all production and
maintenance employes are eligible, exclusive of foremen,
superintendents and clerical forces.
Now, that is the contention of the petitioning union,
is it not?
MR. BEDDOW: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, I want a state
ment from the intervening unions as to their contentions
as to the appropriate unit, so as to save us some time in
our proof.
MR. M AY: Mr. Examiner, the International Brother
hood [28] of Electrical Workers contends that the ap
propriate unit for its organization includes all electrical
workers employed in the maintenance department, power
and sub-station operators, exclusive of supervisory and
clerical forces.
108
[29] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: It is your con
tention, then, if I understand you, Mr. May, that there
should be a separate unit which should include all your
electrical workers in the company who are working in
the maintenance department, the powerhouse or sub
station.
MR. M AY: In the powerhouse and sub-station as
powerhouse or sub-station operators.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: As operators in those
places, exclusive of any supervisory employees.
MR. MAY: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Do you know how
many employees are in that unit?
MR. M AY: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Ex
aminer— I have not checked the payroll,—but, to the
best of my knowledge, approximately 20 men are em
ployed, more or less, approximately 20 men, I don’t know
just how many. I am of the opinion that it is less than
that.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: About 20?
MR. MAY: Yes, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : What is the conten
tion of the Machinists?
MR. HOWARD: The International Association of
Machinists contends to have a bargaining unit covering
the machinists, apprentices and helpers coming under the
wheel and axle shop, that is, exclusive of the clerical and
supervisory [30] forces.
Our contention is for the bargaining unit to cover all
machinists, apprentices and helpers in the maintenance
and the other departments where they work, namely, the
wheel and axle shop, the machine shop, the tool and die
shop, and the welders, and the airbrake department.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You want all ma
chinists, all machinist apprentices and helpers in the
wheel and axle department, the die and tool department,
109
the machine shop, the airbrake department, and all weld
ers in all of the departments?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
# -X- -X*
MR. HOWARD: That is right. Mr. Examiner, later
on, we would like to define what we contend is machin
ists. In other words, a classification of the work in the
department.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You will, of course,
have an opportunity to put on your proof to support your
contention. What I am trying to get now is just a pre
liminary statement.
How about the Federal Labor Union?
MR. GIGLIO: Mr. Examiner, the Federal Labor
Union, the [31] affiliated union of the American Federa
tion of Labor, is covering all workers with the exception
of electricians, the crafts that the Machinists claim, leav
ing out foremen, whose authority is to hire and fire. We
will take the rest.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: How about clerical
employees?
MR. GIGLIO: We take them, too.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: If I understand you,
then, you are asking for a unit to consist of all employees
other than those that the electricians claim in their unit,
and those that the Machinists claim in their unit, and
the supervisory employees.
MR. GIGLIO: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And the unit is to
include the clerical forces.
MR. GIGLIO : That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Well, now, in look
ing over this payroll, I have seen references to watch
men and plant protection employees.
MR. GIGLIO: We take those.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You take those in?
MR. GIGLIO: Yes, sir.
110
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Does the company
have any position to take on the appropriate bargaining
unit?
MR. CABANISS: It does not, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Mr. Beddow, are you
ready to [32] put on your proof?
MR. BEDDOW: Yes, sir, we are ready.
MR. MITCH: Off the record, Mr. Examiner.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. BEDDOW: Mr. Sleeman, will you take the stand,
please?
W. C. SLEEMAN
called as a witness by and on behalf of the Petitioner,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Give your full name
and address to the reporter.
THE WITNESS: W. C. Sleeman; The Pullman
plant.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. Beddow) What is your position, Mr.
Sleeman?
A Plant manager.
* * * *
[34] Q Now, in this business, about how many men
do you have employed there at this time in the plant at
Bessemer?
[35] A My last recollection of the payroll I looked
over is, we had approximately 1268 on the rolls.
* * * #
Q Now, what are the duties of [the] electricians?
A An electrician in our plant is hired for the pur
pose of maintenance work. We have them working
throughout the plant in the different departments. As a
I l l
rule, when we are operating to full capacity, we find
that it is economical to have an electrician in each depart
ment. For instance, on the track, we have so many
hoists that we find that where they are continually being
misused, or something is the matter with them, why, the
man is on the job to immediately repair them, so as not
to hold up production.
Q Do they maintain your electrical equipment, such
as winding armatures, and such as that?
A We, as a rule, wind our armatures. However, we
very frequently, in case of necessity, and sometimes it is
to our advantage, to have them wound on the outside.
We have a combination man who is the armature winder.
Q But these men are all over your plant keeping up
this [36] equipment, is that true?
A No, not all of the electricians. We have some that
work in the electrical shop, that do repair work in the
shop, where it cannot be done on the job.
Q What kind of repair work?
A Repairing reamers. We have, probably, three or
four hundred electrical reamers, and when they get out
of commission on the track, they are carried back to the
electrical shop, where that reamer is repaired for the
track’s use.
Q They also repair various equipment there, such
as your cranes and motors?
A Cranes cannot be repaired in the electrical shop.
Sometimes, motors are taken there, but, as a rule, the
crane work is done right on the job.
Q Now, how many cranes do you have on the job,
Mr. Sleeman?
A We have six in the main bay; we have three, we
just added another one, which makes four, in the second
bay, and one in the wood mill, and one in the wood erec
tion, and we just added another one in a new crane
runway.
112
Q And are they stationary or bridge cranes, or what
is their description?
A They are all bridge cranes.
Q Extending the width of your building?
A Yes.
[37] Q Now, let us go back to that little repair shop.
A Yes, sir.
Q How many men are employed in that little repair
shop you say you have?
A They vary from three or four.
* 4C- *
[38] Q Let us go back for one minute to the elec
tricians there. There was one question called to my
attention. Do you have a powerhouse out there?
A We have a sub-station. I would not class it as a
powerhouse. A powerhouse is a place where they usually
make power. However, we do have one small turbine,
which was recently put in, as stand-by, the stand-by
turbine to cut down demands. Outside of that, there is
just a sub-station.
Q Now, who do you work in this sub-station? Is it an
electrician, a mechanic, or how do you classify him?
A We classify him as the powerhouse operator.
[39] Q He is not classified as an electrician?
A No, sir, he is a powerhouse operator.
Q To your knowledge, is he an electrician?
A To my knowledge, I would class him as an elec
trical man, that is, a man who is capable of taking care
of electrical appurtenances, which he must do in that
powerhouse.
* * * *
Q Now, just what do you class as machinists, Mr.
Sleeman?
[40] A In our shop, we class machinists as men who,
that is, general, all-around machinists, mostly who do
maintenance work. We have an awful lot of die work
118
on which we use machinists, when they are not working
on this maintenance work.
Q Do you employ in this machinist’s work very many
apprentices?
A We have some few apprentices. They are young
fellows who are coming along that we are trying to make
machinists out of.
Q Now, as to helpers, do you have very many helpers?
A We do not have so very many helpers. Usually the
apprentices are, we call them handymen, they act as
helpers. They are the fellows that fit up the dies.
Q Now, are those helpers or apprentices all white, or
partially white and partially negroes?
A I presume you are talking about the machine shop
now?
Q That is right, we are still on the machine shop. ^
A The best I recollect, we have one colored man in
the machine shop, and that is the fellowT for sweeping
out, I don’t know now whether that man is there or not.
Q You don’t know how many apprentices or helpers
you have?
A No, sir.
Q And you couldn’t tell whether they are white or
negro helpers?
[41] A I don’t know. I know we do not have any
negro helpers. We never had. We had one clean-up man
who was a negro.
Q That is in the shop?
A That is in the machine shop.
* * * *
[43] Q (By Mr. Beddow) Now, [concerning welders]
duties about the plant, are they all over the entire plant
where there is welding going on?
A The electrical welders in the maintenance depart
ment, yes. Their duty is to be all over the plant and in
the machine shop. The electrical welders on the produc
114
tion part of the work are confined, more or less to a
specific location.
* * * *
[44] Q (By Mr. Beddow) we were attempting to
negotiate a contract with you from June until September?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, at that time, was there any question, or did
the electricians or machinists, or any labor organization,
or [45] Federal Labor Union, approach you for a con
tract?
A Not as I remember.
* * * *
Q Do you remember the kind of contract we pre
sented to you at that time?
MR. CABANISS: You mean, as to the bargaining
unit?
MR. BEDDOW: As to the bargaining unit.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t remember the entirety
of it. I read it over once, and when I received a letter
from the National Labor Relations Board, I didn’t go into
it any further; I didn’t go any further into it, or do
anything further about it.
MR. CABANISS: Mr. Sleeman, I don’t believe you
understood his question. His question was, did the con
tract that he presented to you purport to refer to the
SWOC as the bargaining agency for all of your em
ployees.
[46] THE WITNESS: I will say it did, as far as I
remember.
* *- * *
[47] Q (By Mr. Beddow) And you have been operat
ing as a single group, is that right, similar to the group
that we are asking you to sign with us in our contract?
A Well, we operate by departments. We have the
steel erection department, who place the cars, the con-
115
struetion department, and the wood mills. They are all
different.
Q But they operate as a whole?
A Each one of them operates, the wood mill operates
as the wood mill, the wood erection as the wood erection.
They have nothing to do with the machine shop.
The powerhouse operates as the powerhouse. The
machine shop operates as the machine shop, but the
maintenance men are all over the plant, they do not
engage in production; you see, they differentiate there.
The production and maintenance are different.
* * * *
[48] Q (By Mr. Mitch) Mr. Sleeman, I didn’t get
this exactly straight. Mr. Beddow was asking you about
a break-down of the people that work in the plant, you
stated there were men that were designated as machin
ists, and I believe you stated that of that class you
classified the people working in the die casting shop as
machinists, is that correct?
A Not altogether. I did make this statement: I
classed the machinist as a man who is capable of doing
machine shop work; that is, any kind of machine shop
work. Very often the breakdowns are not such as to
keep that class of man busy, and we frequently use them
on die work, complicated die work. The men that work
on these dies are handymen and apprentices.
Q In other words, you have people working in the die
shop that you classify as machinists?
A That is right.
[49] Q And that number, you stated, were not kept
busy all the time on one task. That is, they varied their
work?
A That is in the maintenance end.
116
Q When you have a man classified as a machinist,
what does he do, when he is off as a machinist, and is
placed in the die casting shop. Now, when there is no
work available for him, what does he do?
A You mean, when there is no work available in the
dies?
Q Yes.
A We get rid of him.
Q I understood you to say he is moved from one part
of the machine shop into the die shop.
A No, the men move around the shop, but in the die
shop the men who are high class machinists are kept
at machining. They keep up the machining work for
the maintenance end. Now, when that fellow has no
work there, he is put on the complicated die work.
Q I believe you also stated that was true of the
machinists who work in the repair shop?
A That is right.
Q Sometimes they work, when that work does not
keep him busy, he is moved and employed in other parts
of the plant?
A Yes, sir, that is right.
Q You stated, however, on the welders you had, when
work is not available for a man who is hired as a welder,
he is [50] occupied otherwise in the plant, is that true?
A That is true. We have additional work in sight
where we may put these welders on. Right now we are
going through an expansion, and rather than to leave the
welders go, we will put them on doing other welding,
structural work, while we are building little structures,
building.
* * * *
117
CROSS EXAMINATION
* * * *
[By Mr. May] Now, who is the head of this electrical
shop, who is the foreman or the leader, or just what
classification do you put on that man?
We have a foreman over the maintenance department
who is in charge of the millwrights and the electricians.
* * * #
[62] Q Now, you testified about two classifications of
welders, one production welders and the other mainte
nance welders?
A Yes.
Q Now, does that foreman have charge of all of the
welders?
A That foreman, as a rule, is the production man.
However, in the case of the machine shop it has only
been in recent years that the company welded cars, and
prior to that we always had a welder in the machine
shop doing both acetylene and electric welding, but since
then we, more or less, have this one welder looking after,
generally, with the other welders—by that I mean we
have these maintenance welders and if we have trouble
in another place to get welders, we might pull that man
down to assist them.
* * * *
[63] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Come to order,
please.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Before you go into
those lists, Mr. Sleeman, there is one question I would
like to clear up in the record. I would like for you to
explain, briefly, what your operations are, that is, start
ing with your first manufacturing process and taking it
on through to the finished product. Of course, I don’t
want you to go into minute detail, but briefly tell us
what manufacturing steps you have in these various
departments.
118
A All right, sir. We make two types of cars, all-
steel cars and composite cars. The composite cars are
steel cars with wood lining and wood floors. Both the
all-steel cars and the composite cars are run through the
steel shop in practically the same manner, that is, by tak
ing, first, the steel and fabricating it.
Q First, let me ask you, now, of course, you do not
roll any steel yourself?
A We do not roll any steel. We do not make any
castings. [64] We do, however, make drop forgings.
Q You buy your steel and buy your castings, then?
A All of our steel and all of our castings are bought ;
and, we do not have any lumber. We buy the lumber.
Q Now, briefly, just go ahead and tell us what these
processes are?
A The steel is fabricated, as well as the castings we
buy are fabricated in the so-called big shop by punching
holes and pressing them into various shapes. They go
from that location, the fabricated parts, down to the
construction department where they go through a series
of sub-assembly work. The parts are riveted together, or
welded into some component parts. From there they are
taken down into the steel erection shop, and at the steel
erection shop, at one side of the building, we have a
welding department where these pre-fabricated parts are
welded into sub-assembly parts, the same as the construc
tion department has riveted parts. These are then moved
down to the steel erection shop and the car is started
in the first position. Different parts are put on it, and
then, as it progresses down the steel erection track, these
different pre-fabricated parts and pre-assembled parts
are applied to the car.
Q Will you go into that in a little more detail? Let
me go into a little more detail with you. Do you make
the wheels in this plant?
[65] A The wheels are not made there. That is a
casting, as a rule.
119
Q Well, now, do you buy finished castings, that is, a
casting that has already been machined, that is a wheel,
or do you buy the rough casting which has to be ma
chined in this plant to make the wheels?
A The wheels are bought ready for use with the ex
ception of the final boring of the wheel to fit the axles.
The axles are also bought outside. We do not make
those, but, we finish the axles. They are furnished to us
rough turned and we finish them and mount the wheels
on the axle, and then the trucks are built and put on the
axles and the wheels, and it is moved over, and then,
this car is set on the axles and the wheels and the trucks
and the cars run down the steel erection track, and when
it comes out of the steel shop it is a complete car with
the exception of the wood, and when the car is an all-
steel car it is then painted as soon as it comes out of the
steel shop. Then, it is moved over the paint shop, that is,
the all-steel car. It is moved over to the paint shop where
it is given another coat of paint and stenciled and then
it is taken down and weighed and shipped.
Now, on the composite cars, where they have wood on
them, after the car comes out of the steel shop it is given
its first coat of paint, and then it is transferred over to
the wood erection shop. Now, the wood erection shop,
certainly, has [66] to be furnished material, so we have
what we call a wood mill. In this wood mill lumber is
fabricated similar to what we do in the steel shop.
Q What do you buy, rough lumber, undressed lum
ber, or do you buy dressed lumber?
A That all depends on the grade. Sometimes we buy
finished lumber.
Q Do you have a planer?
A Oh, yes, we have planers, grainers, borers and the
usual machinery that is used in a freight car plant for
wood fabricating. After this wood is fabricated, it is
transferred down to the wood erection department where
it is applied to the steel cars in a progressive manner,
120
the same as the steel cars are built. That is, in the first
position, they put on the floors and—
Q Sort of assembly line operation?
A That is right. They have probably, I think, twelve
positions over there, and the first erection is to put in
the floor boards, and the car moves down and then they
buck the floors down, and they then bore the holes, and
then the next movement is where they nut the bolts up,
and then they put the lining on, and then the next
movement is the nails, after they put the lining board on.
It is a progressive system of work, and after it is out of
the wood shop it is moved to the paint shop and given
another coat, stenciled, weighed and shipped.
* * * *
[68] Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Will you refer
to those lists, Mr. Sleeman, and tell us the number of
electricians that you have working in the plant, that
you have classified on your payroll as electricians?
A Seventeen in the maintenance department.
Q And do you also have, or, can you tell us the
number of [69] employees you have in the powerhouse?
A Four.
Q Are those all operators that you have already de
scribed their duties, I think, when Mr. Beddow was ques
tioning you?
A No, there are two operators and two helpers.
* * * *
Q Now, can you tell us the number of people you
have classified as machinists?
A We have nineteen as machinists.
Q Now, what department are they carried in on the
payroll?
[70] A They are carried in the die and tool depart
ment.
Q Do you have a department listed on your payroll
as “ Machine Shop” ?
121
A No sir, the only department is the die and tool
department.
Q And you have nineteen listed in the die and tool
department classified as machinists?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us, briefly, what the duties of those
particular men are?
A Those men are the men who we classify as men
capable of doing general machine shop work, like main
tenance, and they can do repair work and are capable
on machines—
Q Are those men who are classified as machinists, do
they devote all of their time to maintenance work, that
is, repairs, and the making of repair parts around the
plant?
A As a rule, yes, that is what they are hired for, but,
there are some times when we find that there is not
enough maintenance work and they may be put on help
ing on dies and machining dies and stuff like that.
Q Will you explain briefly for the record what the
dies are and how they are used in your manufacturing
process?
A It is a very important part of car manufacture,
because the dies are made of castings that are machined
on the backs so that they will fit together and press
various different [71] parts that go to make up a car.
Q These are dies that go in presses, is that correct?
A They are used on presses.
Q They are used on presses and you place sheet steel
in there to form the various parts?
A That is right.
Q And are those dies manufactured or made in your
plant?
A The castings are bought.
Q Are the castings bought in the rough?
A In the rough. However, in many cases we like to
buy castings which we can use the rough surface on to
122
press on, because it lasts longer and it has got a hardened
side to it and presses more material. However, the
castings are bought in the rough and machined in our
die and tool department.
Q Now, what work do these machinists, in particular,
do with these dies you are talking about when you do
not have enough maintenance work?
A Well, they machine them so they will fit together.
Q In other words, they are repairing or working on
the dies proper?
A That is right.
Q In other words, they do not operate the presses?
A No, the press is in the production department.
* * * «■
[72] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I am trying to
get it clear in the record.
* * *
Q What I am trying to get at is, do they spend most
of their time on maintenance work or on the die work?
A I will say yes, they do.
* * * *
[74] Q Can you tell us how many apprentice machin
ists you have?
A Well, in that department we have twelve die men
and we have three apprentices.
Q Now, twelve die men. Let us leave the die men for
the time being and go to the apprentices and helpers first.
A We have three apprentices and one co-op student.
Q Now, these apprentices, are they learning the ma
chinist’s trade?
A They are learning the machinist’s trade.
Q How do you handle the apprentice system in your
plant? Does the man go to work as an apprentice or
does he go to work as a helper?
A Well, we usually classify him as an apprentice.
We haven’t any helpers down in our department. They
go in as apprentices.
12B
Q And you say you have three and a co-op student?
A Yes.
Q This co-op student is a student who works part
of the time and then goes to school part of the time?
A Three months work and three months in school.
Q And does this same student come back and work
in your plant each three months?
A He is the same student.
Q You do not change students?
[75] A No.
Q How are the apprentices paid?
A Well, I don’t remember their rates. The best I
recollect, they are on 48y2 cents now.
Q They are also paid by the hour?
A Yes.
Q How long does an apprentice have to work as an
apprentice before he is rated as a machinist? Do you
have a set period?
A We do not have any set period, it just depends on
how fast he is and capable of accepting the work.
Q Are there any intermediate steps this apprentice
has to go through before he is classified as a machinist?
A No, they usually say he has got to work about
four years. In fact, we have had a couple of machinists
there that have gone through all of the steps. They put
them at each machine we have and try to give him a
varied experience, that is the apprentice.
Q You say you do not have any helpers in that
department?
A No.
Q What are the other classifications?
A Well, we have what we call machine operators on
these castings we talked about that are machined, but
that is purely and simply a production job. They are
lifted up there, probably eight or ten castings on the
bed of the planer, and they just hog the metal off to a
certain dimension, or approximate [76] dimension. There
124
is no fine, skilled machining. It is a very rough cut.
Then, they are taken from there and taken over and
drilled on an automatic jig where we have, probably,
eight or ten drills that come down and drill the castings
at one lick. Those are machine operators. We have five
of those.
Q Do they have a different rate of pay from your
apprentice machinists?
A Oh, yes, they are production men. They are given
so much a hundred. It is piece work for them.
Q Piece work for them, but that work is done in
your machine shop?
A Yes.
Q And these same machines they work on, are those
same machines also used by the machinists for other types
of work?
A Very frequently we have a machine that has cast
ings on which are of such size that we often run across
dies where we have to pull that work off and put the
other dies on there on account of the size of the ma
chines, and in that case, why, of course, the machinist
does the work.
Q But the machinist works on an hourly rate?
A Oh, yes.
Q How many of these machine operators do you have?
A Five.
Q Now, are they listed on your payroll as machine
operators, or do you call them machinists?
[77] A We call those planer operators and drill press
operators. That is what they are on the payroll as.
Q They are either operating the drill press or operat
ing a planer?
A That is right.
Q Now, do you have any other employees in that
department?
A No, that is all.
125
Q To refresh your recollection, don’t you have two
crane men?
A No, they come under the crane men. I said that
was all there is. The tool room men in this department,
in the machine shop—
Q You mean in the tool and die department?
A Yes.
Q What are their jobs?
A They have charge of the tool rooms dispensing tools
for the machine shop and some of the tools for the other
departments. However, we have other tool rooms through
out the shop. That is not the main tool room.
Q How many of those men do you have?
A We have two tool room men and two helpers.
Q Do they do anything other than just keep up with
the tools and give them out?
A Oh, yes, they do little jobs like grinding tools.
Q Sharpening tools?
[78] A Sharpening tools and stuff like that.
Q They are not tool makers?
A Oh, no, the tool makers are in the forge depart
ment.
Q How are those men paid?
A These men?
Q Yes.
A By the hour.
Q Do you have anybody else in that department?
A No sir, not in the tool room, not in that particular
department.
Q I am talking about the tool and die department?
A We have some helpers, and these helpers are called
handymen. We approximately have, maybe, four or five
of those. They vary on the different payrolls. It just
depends on the kind of work, and we have a hooker.
Q What is a hooker?
A A hooker is a fellow that hooks for the craneman.
126
Q Do you have craneman working in that depart
ment?
A Yes sir, we have one craneman in that department.
Q You have to have an operator on each shift, then,
on that crane?
A Yes.
Q Are they carried on the tool and die department?
A Yes, they are covered in the tool and die depart
ment. They are called the crane operators who are car
ried in a [79] separate department.
Q They just work in this one department?
A Yes sir.
Q They do not work on the crane in other depart
ments?
A No, those are white men.
* * * *
[82] Q Now, then, those welders, I believe you already
testified, are paid on a piece rate basis?
A Yes sir.
Q And they work under a welding foreman?
A Yes sir, they work under a welding foreman.
Q And you have how many maintenance welders?
A We have what we call repair welders.
Q Are those the men you referred to here as the
maintenance welders?
A Yes, sir, three men.
Q They are the most skilled?
A Yes.
Q Where do they work, where is their usual place
for working?
A Well, we usually have one in the tool and die de
partment, but at the particular time there is two in the
tool and die department and there is one in the mainte
nance department.
Q What other maintenance department do you have
other than the tool and die?
127
[83] A I didn’t get that. There are two welders, re
pair welders, that are now working in the tool and die
department.
Q Where is the third one?
A The third one works with the maintenance depart
ment. By that I mean a man who goes all over the shop.
Q In other words, you do not have him in any par
ticular room?
A That is right. For instance, we might have some
breakdown, maybe a frame or a casting would break
down on the track, and we would send that man down
there to do that.
Q Do those three welders work under the same welder
foreman as the production welders?
A We have had them in different conditions. Some
times they work under the die and tool and sometimes
under the welding. We try to keep our welders, all our
welders, under one man.
Q Now, at the present time, those two in the tool and
die department, do they work under the welding fore
man?
A We have a die and tool man and I think they are
generally under the die and tool man and the head
welder, and the maintenance welder is under the main
tenance man and the head welder. In other words, the
die and tool man has charge of the men, but the welding
man has charge of the welding, because the welding
supervisor must see that all of the welding comes up to
specifications, so that is why we have to have, more or
less, a joint combination or control of that plant.
* * * *
[84] Q Now, can you tell us briefly about the airbrake
department.
* * * *
THE WITNESS: I can tell you, generally, about the
pipe men.
128
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Is that what you
call the airbrake department, the pipe men?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) How are they listed
on the payroll?
A They are listed on our payroll as production men.
Their work is entirely different than the maintenance
pipe men.
Q Is it their job to install the airbrakes on the cars?
A The airbrakes and the pipes, the fabricated pipes,
whereas the maintenance men fabricate their pipe in an
entirely different [85] place and their work is different.
Q Can you take this payroll and tell us the approxi
mate number of men in the airbrake department?
A I probably could get it out of my head quicker than
I could on that.
Q All right, sir, give us the approximate number?
A Let’s see. We probably have fifteen men in that
department, that is as of that date.
Q That is as of August 9th?
A Yes sir.
Q And that would probably be approximately the
same as of today?
A No, it would not, not as of today, because one
track is down now.
Q Well, this airbrake department is just a part of
your production line?
A That is right.
Q And they work under the steel construction de
partment?
A That is right, sir, the steel erection department.
Q The steel erection department?
A Yes.
Q Of course, they work on both steel cars, all-steel
cars, and steel and wood cars?
A Yes.
129
Q Do these fifteen men that you mentioned all do the
same [86] sort of work?
A No, they do different classes of work, but they all
work on pipe.
Q They are all applying, cutting, or shaping, or in
stalling this pipe?
A That is right. Some of them apply it, some of them
shape it, some of them put on the angle bolts before it is
put into place, some of them ream the pipe out, some of
them put “U” bolts around the pipe to hold on the pipe,
and that is all on the application and the fabrication of
the pipe.
Q You do not classify them as pipe fitters?
A No, we call them pipe men. We do not classify
them as maintenance pipe men. We do not classify them
as pipe fitters. * * * . *
[87] Q Do these men have any specific machines that
they work on?
A The fellow that fabricates the pipe does, he has a
pipe bender and a pipe threader, and a pipe cutter.
Q Of course, you buy all your pipe, you do not make
any pipe there?
A No, the pipe is all bought.
Q And you cut it to the proper length?
A Yes.
Q And bend it?
A Yes.
Q And thread it?
A Yes.
Q And put the various cut-offs on?
A Yes.
Q Then, these men work, mostly, with the sort of
tools that a plumber works with?
A Yes, I would say yes, only we have developed tools
to eliminate the use of a lot of wrenches, where it is
done by air. You just take the pipe and stick the angle
130
on the holder and come on and slip in the pipe and
tighten it up, and you get a better fitting pipe joint. I
wouldn’t class it entirely like plumbing. It is not plumb
ing. It is production work.
Q Do those men work, do they do work in any other
departments?
[88] A No sir, just in that department.
* * * - *
Q First, tell us what is the wheel and axle depart
ment?
A The wheel and axle department is the department
where these wheels are sent to us unbored. They have a
rough bore, rather, a rough core. We bore those wheels
to the dimensions to fit the axle. The axles are received
by us rough turned and we machine them to fit the
wheel. The two of them are pressed on together and that
comprises the extent of the wheel and axle department.
Q Approximately how many employees do you have
working in that department?
A Considering the night and day shifts, I would say
we probably have sixteen, or maybe eighteen to twenty
men.
Q Now, is that a part of your assembly line, or is
this a step that takes place before it reaches the as
sembly line?
A This is a preliminary step that has got to be done
before [89] the trucks are assembled. It does, however,
work in unison with the building of the trucks. In other
words, we like to coordinate the fabrication and the
boring of the wheels and the fabrication of the axles
and the building of the trucks, and coordinate them with
the building of the cars on the track, because there is
only a limited amount of room and they have got to more
or less coordinate.
Q Is that classified as a separate department, or is it
a part of one of your larger departments?
131
A It is classified as a separate department, the wheel
and axle and truck department is known as one on the
payroll.
Q Wheel, axle and truck?
A Yes sir.
Q How are those employees paid?
A On piece work, with the exception, of course, of
the foreman. That is the only man that is not on piece
work, and the leaders.
Q You have a separate foreman for that department?
A Yes sir.
Q And then a leader on each shift?
A Yes.
Q Are those three men included in the figure you
gave of the total number of employees?
A No sir, they are production men that I gave.
Q Do these employees there do any work in any other
depart- [90] ments, or is all of their work concentrated
in this wheel, axle and truck department?
A Their work is in that department. However, we
sometimes have short periods and we try to move the
men there.
Q But as long as the department is running they
do their work there?
A Yes, they are confined strictly to that.
Q They do not do any work in the steel construction
department?
A No sir.
Q Or the tool and die department?
A No sir.
-» * •* *
[91] Q Now, you mentioned some millwrights?
A Yes.
Q What department do they work in?
A The millwrights come under the maintenance de
partment.
132
Q Now, this maintenance department, that is your
overall-maintenance and repair crew?
A Yes.
Q Under whose supervision do those employees work?
A W. H. Stamps, who also has charge of the elec
tricians.
Q The electricians, then, are part of the maintenance
crew?
A That is right, that is the maintenance crew.
Q What is he, a master mechanic, Mr. Stamps, do
you classify him as such?
A You might call him a master mechanic, although
we do not classify him as that. We have him as foreman
of the maintenance department.
Q Now, your millwrights perform the ordinary duties
of millwrights, they make various repairs of different
kinds?
A That is right.
* # * *
Q Do they devote all of their time to millwright
work?
A Yes.
Q They do not do any production work?
[92] A No sir.
Q They do not work in the tool and die shop, or in
the production end?
A Not on production. They probably go in there in
connection with, if they are doing a certain repair job
to a machine, it may be that they wanted a certain
thing turned, and they might go in there and help the
fellow and show him what they want, or might go and
cooperate with the machine shop.
Q As far as going in and helping in the machine
shop on the machine, they don’t do that?
A They might go in there, if they wanted a casting
drilled, if the fellow was busy, they might put the casting
on there themselves and drill it.
133
Q How about their rates of pay, compared with the
machinists?
A I would say they are about in line with the
machinists.
* * * *
Q But these millwrights are never transferred?
A No, they are all over the shop.
[93] Q I mean they are not transferred to other
work?
A No, we don’t put them on production.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I think that is all.
Q (By Mr. May) Mr. Sleeman, you testified that Mr.
W. H. Stamps was your foreman of the maintenance
department?
A Yes.
Q Now, isn’t there a foreman in charge of the elec
tricians?
A We have an assistant foreman or a leader, as we
call him, who has charge of the electricians. We also
have a man in charge of the millwrights.
Q Now, this electrician, the lead electrician, what is
his name?
A Marsh.
* # # *
[94] Q Now, the powerhouse men, the four power
house men, under whose supervision are they?
A Under Stamps and also Marsh.
Q In other words, Mr. Marsh is their immediate
superior?
A He is the leader or foreman, that is right.
Q Is it the practice for your electricians to be trans
ferred from maintenance to production work?
A We do not use any electricians on production work.
* * * *
[95] Q They are hired as electricians?
A Yes, that is the number I gave you. They were
electricians.
134
Q And these men work over the plant and perform
maintenance, and are under the immediate supervision
of Mr. Marsh?
A That is right, sir.
* * * *
[96] Q How many men, as you recall it, have you
got in this one corner of the building of what the men
call the machine shop?
[97] A These are the men in that department that I
included.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: What is your whole
total for that department?
THE WITNESS: There is 50 total on this roll as
of August 9th, that is for the men of the die and tool
department.
Q (By Mr. Howard) That is in that corner of the
building which I am speaking of as the machine shop?
A Yes sir, in the die and tool shop.
Q Will you name, to the best of your recollection
and knowledge, the various types of machines, such as
planers, lathes, drill presses, and such as that, which is
in this particular shop?
A Yes, I think I can, I can almost give you all of
them. We have four planers, we have two radial drills,
we have two single drills there, and we have another
little one over to the right, that makes three. Those
radial drills, rather, one of them is used on production
entirely, that is on the castings. We have a turret lathe,
we have a boring mill, we have two shapers, we have
another old machine there that we do not use, we have
never turned it. We have a saw filing or dowel machine,
it is called, we got, I think, a small lathe, and another
intermediate lathe, and a large lathe, and then we have
a machine for making, we make all of our drop forgings,
and we have a die sealing machine.
Q You have a milling machine for cutting gears?
[98] A Most of our gears are sent out.
135
Q You cut some of your gears, however?
A We do in extreme cases, but as a rule, we find
we can send them out better.
Q Well, do you have a milling machine in this shop?
A Yes, we have a milling machine.
Q Now, these employees in this particular shop, their
duties is confined to this particular shop practically all
of the time?
A Yes.
* * * *
Q Isn’t it a fact that these maintenance men or
millwrights, as you term them in this particular plant,
whenever they see [99] some particular machine break
down, and some parts has to be repaired, they are taken
to the machine shop, if there is something that has to
have some machine work done it?
A Oh, yes, they are usually taken to the machine
shop to be machined.
Q In other words, that is what this particular shop
is for?
A Primarily, yes, with the exception of the dies and
tools,
Q Well, the dies is machined in there also?
A It is a combination department and it is just called
the die and tool department.
Q In your payroll you call it the die and tool depart
ment?
A Yes.
Q But it takes in this machine shop?
A Yes.
Q In other words, ordinarily what we call in plants
machine shops?
A Yes, but it is not put there primarily for mainte
nance, it is primarily put there for making dies and
tools.
136
Q Well, in the making of dies and tools that goes on
these punching machines and stamping machines, and
they are used in production?
A That is right.
Q In other words, it is to machine these dies?
A Yes.
Q You get them in the rough and they are planed
in this shop?
[100] A Yes.
Q Now, you have a crane in that shop that don’t go
anywhere, but just in that separate shop, is that correct?
In other words, it is for that shop?
A It is supposed to be confined to that particular
locality. However, we find sometimes, when it is nec
essary, we have to run it to the other departments,
probably at night, like when we had three hundred cars
to be unloaded, and we took that crane out there and
unloaded them.
Q But ordinarily?
A Ordinarily that crane is confined to that depart
ment. # •* * *
Q And then you come down to the axle, the wheel
and axle shop?
A Yes.
Q I don’t care to make any repetition as to what you
testified to doing, but in that axle shop, in getting these
castings, the wheels, you say that you get the rough core
and then you have to, you have a boring mill which you
use before you put this wheel on, that is correct, isn’t it?
A That is right.
Q It is bored out before you put it on?
A That is right.
[101] Q Then, you have the axle and that goes through
about three different operations. In other words, they
are roughed down on one machine, and then they are
finished as far as the heel on the second machine and
137
then they are put on the third machine for what is called
burnishing?
A Yes.
Q In other words, this burnishing is simply that the
axle revolves and instead of being cut it is rolled?
A That is right.
Q In other words, in some shops that is called rolling
the axle?
A Yes.
Q And I believe in this plant it is called burnishing?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you have a wheel press in there where
you press these wheels on this axle?
A Yes.
Q And you got also a tool grinder in this wheel and
axle shop, isn’t that correct?
A Yes, we have a wheel and tool grinder. It depends
on the amount of work. At the present time, we have a
tool grinder, but sometimes we do not have.
Q Mr. Sleeman, in the shop, and these labor organi
zations, include the machinists that we claim to repre
sent, or the right to represent these men in this plant, in
your dealings in the [102] classifications, don’t you call
these men machinists in this wheel and axle shop? In
other words, as a common term, wouldn’t you say they
are machinists?
A Absolutely not, because we have taken a man right
from the farm, and he is the best production man we
ever had there, right from the farm and we put him on
wheel boring, and he did a better job, he was a natural
born wheel borer.
Q I appreciate the fact that you can put a man on
there and in other crafts in that way, and I also ap
preciate the fact that you can take a chimpanzee and
show him the operations in some of these departments,
and then put him on a chain where he cannot run away,
and probably he can do that, but I am speaking in gen
138
eral terms, that is the general opinion, that it is ma
chinist’s work, set up in the nature of machinist’s work
in this wheel and axle shop.
A I wouldn’t say that, I would say they are machine
helpers, it is a machine helper’s job. He is confined to
that principally, to that class of work, and he doesn’t
have to be a machinist.
Q Well, would you say he is a machine helper ?
A He is a machine helper.
Q Now, you have a crane in that department?
A Yes.
Q That is confined to that department?
A Yes.
[103] Q I mean ordinarily?
A It is confined to the wheel and axle and truck
department, but does other work.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Is that operator of
that crane included in the figure you gave us of the
total number of employees in that department?
A No, he comes under a different crane department.
Q In a different crane department?
A Yes.
Q And he is not carried on your payroll—
A (Interrupting) As a tool and die man, no sir.
Q I mean under the wheel, axle and truck depart
ment?
A No, he comes under the crane operators,
* * * *
[105] Q Now, these millwrights, like I said, in the
language of our organization, we would term, as a mill
wright, a man who goes over the plant and repairs
machines in that plant. In other words, we do not class
them as millwrights, we class them as machinists. Now,
do you make a distinction in your plant and call them
millwrights, and make a separation from machinists?
A No, the millwrights are not the machinists in our
plant. Those are the men who can tear down machines
139
and put back wheels, and take off bolts, and put them
back on and line up bolts, and pour babbit on bearings
and replace bearings, and tend to the whole system to
see that it is properly put in. The machinist was the
man at one time who used to do like you are talking
about, we had machine shop men go around and do the
work. *- * * #
[106] Q (By Mr. Howard) Now, in this air work that
the Trial Examiner was questioning you on before, you
got what is known as “ A.B.” valves that you put on these
cars?
A Yes.
Q These airbrake men put on all the airbrake equip
ment?
A Yes.
Q And your cylinders and the valves, I believe you
call them “ A.B.” valves?
A Yes.
Q Do you have a test rack in there?
A We have no test rack.
Q You have no means of testing these valves out at
the plant?
A We test the air pressure to see if it will stand
so much pressure on the pipe line, after we put it in.
We have air [107] gauges, but we do not have a test
rack. We do not need a test rack, the test rack is only
used to check up the <!A.B.” valve itself, but they come
in on new equipment to us, so it is different from the
railroads. * * * *
[108] REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. Mitch) Mr. Sleeman, you testified, I be
lieve, that there were about seventeen men on your pay
roll designated as electricians. I think that figure is
right.
A Seventeen men?
140
MR. CABANISS: Electricians.
[109] THE WITNESS: Seventeen in the maintenance
department as electricians. That is separate from the
powerhouse operators.
Q (By Mr. Mitch) Of that seventeen how many work
in this well defined area or room, as you called it, that
is designated the electrical shop?
A I answered that before, I think. I answered in this
way, by saying before that we did not have any number
confined there; there are one or two fellows, usually,
who are there and as the work piles up, and it is nec
essary, for instance, if we are running high on reamers,
we might go into a different department and get a bunch
to get them to get those reamers out and get the work
going, but we do get it out of there.
Q And they are designated as machinists working
in any part of the shop?
A Yes.
Q And the powerhouse is the same way?
A Yes.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) You say when the
work piles up in the electrical department you pull the
men in from the other departments, the department of
electricians?
A Yes. In order to make it clear, our track, ordi
narily, we have three or four men on the track, and our
reamers are high frequency electric reamers, and very
frequently they get out of whack, and they take them
to the electrical department [110] and fix them up, and
when we haven’t got any reamers on the track, or the
track is not running, we get the electrical men and get
them down there so they can get to the reamers down
there and then go on other work.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. May) You have a well defined system of
apprentices, in other words, if a man is hired in your
141
plant as an electrician, he don’t have to serve as an
apprentice?
A No, as a rule, our operations have been so up and
down that by the time we get an apprentice where we
can use him, why, we go down, and we have to lay off
the apprentice and keep the good men, and so, that is
the reason we have been trying this co-op student system.
Of course, it is a little better work in a way.
Q Let us assume that you needed another man to do
electrical work, and he was designated as an electrician,
a man who does that type of work, where would you have
to go to get him?
A Where would I get him?
Q Yes, where would you find him?
A Well, we usually have a number of applications
on file for electricians and machinists, and we just na
turally go to our employment file and find one.
Q Do you sometimes hire, from another portion of
your plant, a man who was put on that type of work?
A We would, if we had a fellow come to us and tell
us he [111] wanted to be an electrician, we have had
men to come to us and say they would like to do it, and
we try him out and sometimes he fails and sometimes
he does not.
Q I assume you use the same general plan in your
employment, in getting men, as described for the ma
chinists?
A That is right, yes.
Q You said that if a person employed in your plant,
in some other department, rather than the electrical
department, made an application to work as an elec
trician, that you would give him that employment, but
I presume you naturally make some investigation as to
whether that man was capable to perform the electrical
work, wouldn’t you, or would you consider him different
than an electrician?
142
A When a man applies to us for a job as an elec
trician, he would naturally make an application, and if
we were going to hire him we would take the information
where he worked, where he worked before, and check
it up to see if the man can do the work. That is the
natural thing. But, that does not prove true in all of our
occupations. We have had men who we have not had
the time to check up, we put them up there and found
out that they couldn’t do it.
Q Also it is true, in hiring new workers to be placed
in the electrical department as electricians, you do make
an electrician determine their qualifications to do the
work desired?
[112] A As a rule, yes.
Q Is there any such thing as a probationary period
for employees in the skilled crafts, or the skilled work
at your plant, to determine whether that man is capable
of performing the work desired of him?
A We have not had any probationary period other
than, very frequently, if we are doubtful that the man
can perform the work, we will give him a trial to see if
he can do all right, and if he cannot, why, we usually
tell him that we gave him a chance on it. We don’t know
whether he can do it or not.
Q But, you are of the opinion, I trust, that you can
not just take and pick up anyone and put them out to
perform electrical work?
A Electrical welding?
Q Electrical work.
A Well, you mean— will you tell me what electrical
work you mean?
Q I mean in this specific instance in your plant, to
do the work in your plant?
A And electrical welding?
Q Yes, I will take the electrical welding.
A Well, I think it would be sometimes dangerous to
put anybody out there into our powerhouse. As a matter
143
of fact, I am afraid of electricity and I wouldn’t touch
it myself, I keep away from it, and when I do it myself
I don’t ask the [113] other fellow to do what I will not
do. We like to know what experience a man has had,
and what he has been doing, instead of just shooting up
the works. * * * *
[128] J. L. GIGLIO
a witness called by and on behalf of the Federal Labor
Union, Intervener, having been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Where do you live,
Mr. Giglio?
A 1012 Fulton Avenue, Birmingham.
Q What is your business or occupation?
A I am an organizer for the American Federation of
Labor.
Q A general organizer for the AF of L?
A Yes sir.
Q And you are appearing in this hearing repre
senting what organization?
A The Federal Organization of the American Federa
tion of Labor.
Q Now, is that one Federal Labor Union, or, explain
to us what that organization is?
A The Federal Organization in this case is an or
ganization that we take in all of the industrial workers
with exceptions. Let me put it this way: The American
Federation of Labor is a craft organization. We go in as
Federal Organizations and organize these men and then
the different crafts comes in and takes their prorata
share of the men, and deal with their organizations, such
as the machinists and the millwrights, and [129] on
down the line there, leaving me the rest of the men,
144
black and white, common laborers, and mechanics that
is not stipulated in the Electrical Workers or the Ma
chinists Organization.
-K- *
[130] Q At the present time you are claiming to rep
resent all the employees of the Pullman Company, ex
clusive of those who are represented by the International
Association of Machinists, those represented by the In
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the
supervisory employees, including foremen, assistant fore
men, leaders and superintendents?
A Well, I don’t know about the leaders. If the leaders
have the power to hire and fire, of course, we could ex
clude them, but if they cannot hire and fire, but just
merely got the title there as foremen, then, we do take
them. * * * *
[132] CROSS EXAMINATION
* # * *
Q (By Mr. Beddow) Suppose you went to Mr. Slee-
man’s plant and the machinists [133] were not there,
who would you take, who would take them in the Ma
chinists Union?
A I would take them in if they wanted to join.
Q In the Machinists Union?
A No sir, I would take them in the Federal Union
and let the Machinists Union take them from the Fed
eral Union.
Q Suppose, however, you had in that plant a number
of negro workers who were helpers to machinists out
there, would you take them in?
A I would take them in the Federal Union, yes.
Q Would they be eligible to join the Machinists Union
when they came after them?
A I cannot answer for the Machinists Union.
145
Q You don’t know whether they would or not?
A There is, the Machinists have a provision in the
constitution to take care of helpers.
Q Do they have a provision to take care of negro
helpers?
A Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I don’t know that
that line of questioning adds anything to this. There
has been no testimony that there are any negro helpers
involved in the machine shop.
MR. BEDDOW: There are only two and it is my
information that they cannot belong—
MR. M AY: Mr. Examiner, are we going into a race
question [134] here, or are we talking about the facts in
the case?
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I made my state
ment. I don’t think that this line of questioning has
anything to do with this witness’ testimony at all.
Q (By Mr. Beddow) All right, you say you let them
come in and get them if they wanted them, is that right?
A They got to have jurisdiction over them. They
don’t get what they want.
Q And you don’t know whether they would take that
jurisdiction?
A Under their constitution they would have it.
* * * *
[143] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: One thing I
want to get clear in the record, it may not be clear on
the record, and I want a statement from the representa
tive of the Machinists as to its contention as to the ap
propriate bargaining unit. He had a preliminary state
ment this morning, but there has been a great deal of
testimony about the work of the employees in these
departments, and I want to clear it up as much as pos
sible. Are you prepared to make such a statement at
this time, Mr. Howard?
146
MR. HOWARD: At this time I want to offer the
constitution of the Grand Lodge, District and Local
Lodges, International Association of Machinists, and
Page V, and I want to refer to the heading there “ Juris
diction of the International Association of Machinists” ,
and introduce that, and come on down to Lines 28 and
29, “ Classification of Work Included” .
Also Page VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the Constitu
tion.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You are offering a
copy of this Constitution as an exhibit?
MR. HOWARD: An exhibit on the classification of
the work covering the men that we claim to represent
over at the [144] Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing
Company at Bessemer, inasmuch as we use, usually use
the term, in calling them machinists, that it includes ma
chinists, apprentices, helpers, welders, both electric and
oxy-acetylene, and millwrights.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: To clear the record,
then, you are offering now a printed pamphlet entitled:
“ Constitution of the Grand Lodge, District and Local
Lodges, International Association of Machinists” .
Is there any objection to the introduction of this ex
hibit?
MR. MITCH: Is that offered for the purpose of de
fining what unit they are contending for now, or the
jurisdiction of their organization?
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Mr. Howard, you
are offering this to show what jurisdiction your organi
zation has, and what employees are eligible for member
ship in your organization?
MR. HOWARD: That is right. In other words, we
term millwrights, we claim, are machinists. Ordinarily
the term “ Machinist” covers millwrights.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Wait a minute. This
exhibit is received as I.N. Exhibit 1.
(The document above referred to was marked I.N.
Exhibit No. 1 and received in evidence.)
147
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Mr. Howard, you
might be a little more specific than you were this morn
ing, after hearing the [145] testimony of Mr. Sleeman,
as to which employees or classification of employees you
desire to be included in the appropriate unit.
MR. HOWARD: I thought I covered it just then.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Well, let me ask
you—
MR. BEDDOW: Is he testifying now? If he is, I
suggest he be put under oath.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: No, I am asking
him to make this statement at the counsel table.
Mr. Sleeman testified that they had only, I think,
nineteen machinists in that tool and die or die and tool
department, I have forgotten which, and there were
maintenance machinists, there were handymen or helpers,
there were machine operators and there were die men.
Now, do you take all of those classifications in that
department in?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: In addition to those
classifications I have named, they had tool room men
and tool room helpers and we had cranemen and crane
operators’ helpers.
MR. HOWARD: There were more than two in the
tool room, as I recall it.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I mean one on each
shift, I think was the testimony. Do you take in all of
the employees Mr. Sleeman testified about as being in
this tool and die room?
MR. HOWARD: That is correct.
[146] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Does that in
clude the man who is described as the templete man?
MR. HOWARD: No, we don’t take the template.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You do take in the
tool room men and the crane operators in that part of
the plan?
148
MR. HOWARD: The crane operators and the tool
and die and machine shop. I believe we identified them,
is that correct?
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : That is correct.
MR. HOWARD: And in the wheel and axle, we
claim them, but we claim nobody in the forge shop at all.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You claim all of the
employees in the wheel and axle, exclusive of the super
visory employees?
MR. HOWARD: Yes, according to what was testified
this morning.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That will exclude
the foreman and the assistant foreman?
MR. HOWARD: Yes sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, do you ask for
the crane operators in the wheel and axle department?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Now, you are asking
for all of the employees that have been referred to here
as millwrights?
MR. HOWARD: That is right, and the airbrake men.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You are asking for
all of the [147] employees in the airbrake department,
and when I say all of the employees in those departments,
I mean exclusive of supervisory.
MR. HOWARD: That is the understanding.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And you also exclude
the clerical employees?
MR. HOWARD: That is right, we exclude the cleri-
Cell
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And you are also
asking for all of the welders, both production welders
and maintenance welders?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, do you think
that defines your unit?
MR. HOWARD: I think so.
149
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Anything else?
MR. BEDDOW: He said he took all of the hookers
and the crane operators and whatnot.
MR. HOWARD: I did not say hookers.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: He did not claim
the hookers.
MR. HOWARD: I didn’t claim the hookers, no.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That would be in
both the tool and die and the wheel and axle.
MR. HOWARD: I don’t claim the hookers anywhere.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Neither one of the
hookers?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Anything else by
any of the [148] parties?
MR. BEDDOW: Did you say you claim the cranemen
in the axle department, too?
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: So I understood. Is
that correct?
MR. HOWARD: Yes, just in the wheel and axle and
the tool and die and machine shop, that is all.
MR. BEDDOW: Let me ask one thing, and I want
this for the record and no other reason. Part of those
men, cranemen out there are negro workers, and even
though they are in your department, do you claim those
negro cranemen and negro hookers, or whatnot?
MR. HOWARD: We claim them in that department.
MR. BEDDOW: You claim them, even though they
are colored?
MR. HOWARD: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: But not the hookers,
you do not claim the hookers in any department?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That was my under
standing.
* * * *
150
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 14
In the Matter of
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company
and Steel Workers Organizing Committee
Case No. R-2952.— Decided September 12, 1941
Jurisdiction: railroad car manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives: ex
istence of question: refusal by Company to grant
exclusive recognition to unions involved; elections
necessary.
Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: single or
separate units comprising: (1) all electrical employees
in maintenance department, and powerhouse and sub
station operators, excluding foremen, leaders, and cleri
cal employees; (2) all machinists, apprentices and
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom
helpers, handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, produc
tion and maintenance welders, employees in wheel,
axle and truck shop, except crane hookers, and em
ployees in air-brake department excluding foremen,
leaders, and clerical employees; and (3) all production
and maintenance employees including watchmen, and
plant protection employees but excluding foremen,
leaders and clerical employees; determination of, de
pendent upon elections.
Mr. Jelks H. Cabaniss, of Birmingham, Ala., for the
Company.
Mr. William E. Mitch and Mr. Noel R. Beddow, of
Birmingham, Ala., for the S. W. 0. C.
Mr. J. R. May, of Montgomery, Ala., for the I.B.E.W.
151
Mr. J. H. Howard, of Washington, D.C., and Mr. J. D.
Baumgardner, of Birmingham, Ala., for the I. A. M.
Mr. J. L. Giglio, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Federal
Labor Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Statement of the Case
On August 1, 1941, Steel Workers Organizing Com
mittee, herein called the S. W. 0. C., filed with the Re
gional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia)
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bes
semer, Alabama, herein called the Company, and request
ing an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 20,
1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act,
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations— Series 2, as amended,
ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On August 21, 1941, the Regional Director issued a
notice of hearing, copies of which were duly seived upon
the Company, the S. W. 0. C., and the following^ labor
organizations claiming to represent employees directly
affected by the investigation: Federal Labor Union,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein
35 NLRB, No. 78
152
called the Federal Labor Union; International Associa
tion of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federa
tion of Labor, herein called the I. A. M.; and Interna
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
I. B. E. W. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on
August 28, 1941, at Birmingham, Alabama, before John
C. McRee, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. At the beginning of the hearing,
the Federal Labor Union, the I. A. M., and the I. B. E. W.
presented motions to intervene which were granted by
the Trial Examiner. The Company, the S. W. 0. C.,
the Federal Labor Union, the I. A. M., and the
I. B. E. W. were represented by counsel or official repre
sentatives and participated in the hearing. Full oppor
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hear
ing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes
the following:
F in d in g s op F a c t
I. THE BUSINESS OP THE COMPANY
The Company is a Delaware corporation operating a
plant at Bessemer, Alabama, where it manufactures rail
road cars. All manufactured cars are sold to railroads
engaged in interstate commerce. The Company admits,
for the purposes of this proceeding, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
158
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor or
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or
ganizations, admitting employees of the Company to
membership.
Federal Labor Union, International Association of
Machinists, and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, are labor organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, admitting employees of
the Company to membership.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In July 1941, the S. W. 0. C. requested of the Com
pany recognition as the exclusive bargaining representa
tive of its employees. The Company failed to recognize
S. W. 0. C. as such representative. In August, the
I. B. E. W., the I. A. M., and the Federal Labor Union
each sought exclusive recognition by the respondent as
bargaining representatives of certain of its employees.
It does not appear that the Company granted such rec
ognition to any of these organizations. In July or Au
gust, the Company informed the Regional Director of
its desire that the Board decide the question of repre
sentation. From a statement of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing, it appears that each of the labor organi
zations here involved represents a substantial number of
the Company’s employees in the unit claimed by each to
be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.1 1
1 The S. W. 0. C. submitted to- the Trial Examiner 1,053 author
ization and membership- cards. The Trial Examiner examined them
and stated that 1,039 cards- appeared to bear genuine original
signatures, that 880 cards- were dated between April 1 and August
14, 1941, 95 between April 1 and December 30, 1940, and that the
remainder were undated. The Trial Examiner selected 100 cards
at random, checked the signatures thereon against the- pay roll fo-r
the week ending August 9, 1941, and found 92 to be the- names of
154
We find that a question has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation
which has arisen, occurring in connection with the opera
tions of the Company described in Section I above, has
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tends to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
persons appearing on said pay roll. There are about 1,168 employees
in the unit claimed by the S. W. O. C. to be appropriate.
The I.B.E.W. submitted to the Trial Examiner a membership
dues receipts book and a membership application receipts book,
both books containing the receipts of a total of 17 persons who
were alleged to be employees o f the Company. All these receipts
were dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner found that of
the 17 names listed on these receipts, 16 appeared on the August
9 pay roll. There are 21 employees in the unit claimed by the
I.B.E.W. to be appropriate.
The I. A. M. submitted to the Trial Examiner 137 authorization
cards dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner stated that
all of the cards appeared to bear genuine original signatures, and
that, among 30 cards selected at random, 26 bore the names of
persons appearing on the August 9 pay roll. There are about 135
employees in the unit claimed by the I. A. M. to be appropriate,
exclusive o f millwrights, whose number the record does not disclose.
The Federal Labor Union submitted to the Trial Examiner 248
authorization and membership cards, of which 236 appeared to the
Trial Examiner to bear genuine, original signatures, and 221 of
the 236 were dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner
selected 60 cards at random and found that 49 bore the names of
persons listed on the August 9 pay roll. There are about 1,000
employees in the unit claimed by the Federal Labor Union to be
appropriate.
155
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The S. W. 0. C. contends that production and mainte
nance employees, excluding foremen, superintendents,
and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The I. B. E. W.
urges that a separate unit of all electrical employees in
the maintenance department, and power-house and sub
station operators, excluding supervisory and clerical em
ployees, is appropriate. The I. A. M. claims that a sepa
rate unit composed of machinists, apprentices and
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers,
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and
maintenance welders, employees in the wheel, axle, and
truck shop, except crane hookers, and employees in the
air-brake department, excluding from each of the fore
going groups supervisory and clerical employees, is ap
propriate. The Federal Labor Union asserts that all em
ployees, including clerical employees, watchmen, and
plant-protection employees, but excluding employees in
the units claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W.,
and supervisory employees with authority to hire and
discharge, comprise an appropriate unit. The Company
takes no position with respect to the appropriate unit.
The evidence indicates that many of the employees in
the separate units urged by the I. B. E. W. and the
I. A. M. are skilled employees, and all of such employees
appear to come under the craft jurisdictions of these two
unions. On the other hand, evidence was introduced to
show that the manufacture of railroad freight cars at
the Company’s plant is an integrated production process,
and that an industrial unit, including the employees
claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W., is appro
priate. So far as the record shows, there has been no
history of collective bargaining either by the craft or in
156
dustrial unions.2 Under the circumstances herein pre
sented, we find that the employees in the units claimed
by the I. B. E. W. and the I. A. M. could function either
as separate units or as part of a single industrial unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct that elections be held, (1)
among the employees, with the exclusions specified below,
claimed by the I. B. E. W. to constitute an appropriate
unit, to determine whether they wish to be represented
by the I. B. E. W., by the S. W. 0. C., or by neither of
these organizations; (2) among the employees, with the
exclusions specified below, claimed by the I. A. M. to
constitute an appropriate unit, to determine whether
they wish to be represented by the I. A. M., by the
S. W. 0. C., or by neither of these organizations. On
the results of these elections will depend the appropriate
unit. If the employees in either of these two groups
select a bargaining representative other than the repre
sentative selected by the employees in the plant-wide in
dustrial unit, they will constitute a separate and distinct
appropriate unit. If they choose the same representative
as the employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they
will be merged into a single unit with such employees.3
Supervisory employees. Supervisory employees at the
Company’s plant, consisting of foremen and leaders, have
authority to hire and discharge employees. All parties
apparently desire, and since they are major supervisory
employees, we shall direct, that these employees be ex
cluded from the craft and industrial units.4
2 The S. W. 0. C. attempted to negotiate a contract with the
Company in 1937 and again in 1941. However, the parties never
entered into a contract and the character of the negotiations does
not appear.
3 Matter of The Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal
Polishers Union, Local No. 3, et al., 3 N.L.R.B. 294.
4 James E. Stark Co. and Upholsterers’ International Union of
North America, Local No. 255, 33 N.L.R.B. 1076.
157
Clerical employees. The S. W. 0. C. desires to exclude
clerical employees from the appropriate unit. The
I. B. E. W. and the I. A. M. also seek to exclude clerical
employees from the unit each seeks as appropriate. The
Federal Labor Union, on the other hand, requests the
inclusion of clerical employees in the unit of employees
it claims as appropriate. The Federal Labor Union, how
ever, has not specified which employees it refers to as
clerical, or introduced any evidence regarding the duties
of the clerical employees it desires included in the unit.
The plant manager included in his pay-roll list of “ cleri
cal” employees all employees in engineering, pay-roll,
timekeeping, and accounting departments. Apparently all
these employees work in the Company’s general office.
They are salaried employees. The evidence does not dis
close whether there are any clerical employees in the
plant. Under these circumstances, and since the inter
ests of the employees in the engineering, pay-roll, time
keeping, and accounting departments are distinct from
those of employees in a unit of production employees, we
shall exclude all clerical employees from the units herein
alleged to be appropriate.
Watchmen and plant-protection employees. The Fed
eral Labor Union desires the inclusion of these employees
in the industrial unit. The S. W. 0. C. has not expressed
its position with regard to these employees. We shall
include the watchmen and plant-protection employees in
the industrial unit.5
We find that all production and maintenance em
ployees, including watchmen and plant-protection em
ployees, but excluding superintendents, foremen, leaders,
and clerical employees, may properly constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
which would insure to the employees of the Company
5 M a tter o f The Q uaker Oats Com pany and U nited C ereal W ork
ers L ocal Industrial Union, N o. 1105, 32 N.L.R.B. 312.
158
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act. As indicated above, the employees in the
units claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W. may
or may not be included within such unit, depending on
the results of the elections we shall order. We shall,
therefore, make no final determination of the appropriate
unit or units pending the elections to be conducted
among the employees in the craft units.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We have heretofore decided that separate elections will
be held to determine the collective bargaining representa
tives for the employees in the craft units. We find that
the question concerning representation of the employees
in the industrial unit can best be resolved by means of
an election by secret ballot.
The parties stipulated that the pay roll for the week
ending August 9, 1941, would be satisfactory for the
purpose of determining eligibility to vote. We shall give
effect to the desires of the parties in this respect and
shall accordingly direct that the employees of the Com
pany eligible to vote in the elections shall be those who
were employed during the pay-roll period ending Au
gust 9, 1941, subject to such limitations and additions as
are set forth in the Direction of Elections herein.
At the hearing the labor organizations requested that
their names appear on the ballot as follows: Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466; Federal
Labor Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor; International Association of Machinists, Local
No. 359; and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 287. These requests are hereby
granted.
159
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following:
Conclusion op Law
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Pullman-Standard
Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, within
the meaning of Section 9(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the
National Labor Relations Board by Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article
III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations— Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
Directed that, as part of the investigation authorized
by the Board to ascertain representatives for the pur
poses of collective bargaining with Pullman-Standard
Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, elec
tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as soon as pos
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations:
1. Among all electrical employees in the maintenance
department, and power-house and sub-station operators
of the Company, who were employed during the pay-roll
period ending August 9, 1941, including employees who
did not work during such pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or in the active military service
or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off,
but excluding foremen, leaders, clerical employees, and
employees who have since quit or been discharged for
160
cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466
or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 287, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither; and
2. Among all machinists, apprentices and helpers, em
ployees in tool and die shop classified as die men,
machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers,
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake
department, who were employed by the Company during
the pay-roll period ending August 9, 1941, including
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or in the active
military service or training of the United States, or
temporarily laid off, but excluding foremen, leaders, and
clerical employees, and employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, Local No. 1466, or by International Associa
tion of Machinists, Local No. 359, for purposes of collec
tive bargaining, or by neither; and
3. Among all production and maintenance employees
of the Company who were employed during the pay-roll
period ending August 9, 1941, including watchmen, plant-
protection employees, employees who did not work during
such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or in the active military service or training of the United
States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding superin
tendents, foremen, leaders, clerical employees, employees
in groups 1 and 2 above, and employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by Steel Workers Organiz
ing Committee, Local No. 1466 or by Federal Labor
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
161
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 15
In the Matter of Pullman-Standard Car Manufac
turing Company and Steel Workers Organizing
Committee
Case No. R-2952
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 19, 1941
On September 12, 1941, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, issued its Decision and
Direction of Elections in the above-entitled proceeding.1
Pursuant to said Direction of Elections, elections by
secret ballot were conducted on October 7, 1941, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia). On October 16,
1941, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article
III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations— Series 2, as amended, issued an Elec
tion Report, copies of which were duly served upon the
parties. No objections to the conduct of the ballot or to
the Election Report were filed by any of the parties.
As to the balloting and the results thereof, the Regional
Director reported as follows:
G roup N o. l
1. Total number eligible .............................................. -........
2. Total ballots, cast ................................................................
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ
izing Committee, Local No. 1466 ................—............
4. Total number of ballots cast for International Brother
hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 287 ...............
1 35 N.L.R.B., No, 78.
36 N.L.R.B. No. 230
22
18
4
13
162
5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.-- 1
6. Total number of challenged ballots .................-.............. 0
7. Total number o f void ballots ........................... ................. 0
8. Total number of blank ballots ......................................... 0
Group No. 2
1. Total number eligible ....................................................... 163
2. Total ballots cast ................................................................ 151
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ
izing Committee, Local No. 1466 ................................ 18
4. Total number of ballots cast for International Associ
ation o f Machinists, Local No. 359 ............................ 127
5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.... 5
6. Total number of challenged ballots .............- .....- ........-• 1
7. Total number of void ballots ................................. ......... 0
8. Total number o f blank ballots ................................ ........ 0
Group No. 3
1. Total number eligible ................................................ ....... 987
2. Total ballots cast ................................................................ 904
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ
izing Committee, Local No'. 1466 .............................. 736
4. Total number of ballots cast for Federal Labor Union,
Affiliated with the American Federation o f Labor.... I l l
5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.... 24
6. Total number of challenged ballots .................................. 28
7. Total number of void ballots ................................ 4
8. Total number of blank ballots ......................................— 1
Since the number of challenged ballots cannot affect
the results of the election, the Regional Director made no
report or recommendation regarding said challenges, and
we find it unnecessary to make any determination with
respect thereto.
In the Decision and Direction of Elections previously
referred to the Board stated:
. . . we shall direct that elections be held, (1) among
the employees, with the exclusions specified below,
claimed by the I. B. E. W. to constitute an appro
priate unit, to determine whether they wish to be
represented by the I. B. E. W., by the S. W. 0. C.,
163
or by neither of these organizations; (2) among the
employees, with the exclusion specified below, claimed
by the I. A. M. to constitute an appropriate unit, to
determine whether they wish to be represented by the
I. A. M., by the S. W. 0. C., or by neither of these
organizations. On the results of these elections will
depend the appropriate unit. If the employees in
either of these two groups select a bargaining rep
resentative other than the representative selected by
the employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they
will constitute a separate and distinct appropriate
unit. If they choose the same representative as the
employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they
will be merged into a single unit with such em
ployees.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following:
Su p p l e m e n t a l F in d in g s op F a c t
We find that all electrical employees in the maintenance
department, and powerhouse and substation operators, of
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bes
semer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
We find that all machinists, apprentices and helpers,
employees in tool and die shop classified as die men,
machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers,
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake
department,2 of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing
2 It is to be noted that the Board intended in its Decision and
Direction of Elections to include employees in air-brake department
in the unit sought by the I. A. M.
164
Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen,
leaders, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appro
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all production and maintenance em
ployees of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Com
pany, Bessemer, Alabama, including watchmen and plant
protection employees, but excluding superintendents, fore
men, leaders, clerical employees, and employees enumer
ated above in the last two preceding paragraphs,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec
tive bargaining.
We find that the above units will insure to the em
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to
self-organization and to collective bargaining, and other
wise will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following:
S u p p l e m e n t a l C o n c l u s io n s of L a w
1. All electrical employees in the maintenance depart
ment, and powerhouse and substation operators, of
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse
mer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All machinists, apprentices and helpers, employees
in tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handymen, crane
men, millwrights, production and maintenance welders,
employees in wheel, axle, and truck shop, except crane
hookers, and employees in air-brake department, of Pull
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer,
Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical em
165
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of Pull
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer,
Alabama, including watchmen and plant protection em
ployees, but excluding superintendents, foremen, leaders,
clerical employees, and employees in group 1 and 2 above,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the
National Labor Relations Board by Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant
to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Rela
tions Board Rules and Regulations— Series 2, as
amended,
I t is h e r e b y c e r t if ie d that International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 287, has been designated
and selected by a majority of all electrical employees in
the maintenance department, and powerhouse and sub
station operators, of Pullman-Standard Car Manufactur
ing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen,
leaders, and clerical employees, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pur
suant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations
Act, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 287, is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
I t is h e r e b y c e r tifie d that International Association
of Machinists, Local No. 359, has been designated and
166
selected by a majority of all machinists, apprentices and
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers,
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake
department, of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing
Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen,
leaders, and clerical employees, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursu
ant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act,
International Association of Machinists, Local No. 359,
is the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
I t is h e r e b y c e r t if ie d that Steel Workers Organiz
ing Committee, Local No. 1466, has been designated and
selected by a majority of all production and maintenance
employees of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Com
pany, Bessemer, Alabama, including watchmen and plant
protection employees, but excluding superintendents, fore
men, leaders, clerical employees, and employees enumer
ated above in the last two preceding paragraphs, as their
representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
Local No. 1466, is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment.
M r . G era rd D. R e il l y took no part in the considera
tion of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representatives.
167
P L A I N T I F F S ’ E X H I B I T 17
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made anc! entered Into this 7th
day of April, 1942, between Pullman-Standard Car Man
ufacturing Company, hereinafter referred to as the
“ Company” , for its plant located in the City of Bessemer,
State of Alabama, and the International Association
of Machinists, Lodge No. 359, affiliated with the Amer
ican Federation of Labor, hereinafter referred to as the
“Association” , as the exclusive representative and bar
gaining agent of all employees of the Company as de
fined and set forth in the second paragraph of the
National Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, certifi
cation, Case No. R-2952, dated November 19, 1941, as
supplemented or clarified by letter of the respective unions
to the Company dated December 19, 1941:
* * * *
11. SENIORITY. Seniority of employees covered by
this Agreement shall be confined to the department em
ployed in each of the following departments:
Tool and Die Shop
Wheel and Axle Shop
Air-Brake Department
Welders
Millwrights.
Seniority starts from the day of employment. When
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall
be reduced.
Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con
tributory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan
for hourly and piece-work employees as amended July 14,
1941.
168
[Attachment to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17]
Notice will be given to the men affected before reduc
tion is made, five days in advance, unless conditions
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be
furnished the Shop Committee.
The last man employed shall he the first man laid
off, except that due to nature of the work on production
tracks the present practice in the welders and air-brake
departments will continue, in that the men affected will
take lay off without regard to seniority, provided, how
ever, that in case of permanent lay-off, seniority will
govern.
In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will be
given preference of re-employment, if available within
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former
positions if practicable.
A copy of the seniority list will be made available
at least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice
posted that copy is available in the employment office
to the employees listed.
New employees are on probation for three months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged
as exclusively determined by the Company.
* * * *
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the As
sociation have each caused these presents to be executed
in their respective names by their proper officers there
unto duly authorized.
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d C a r M a n u f a c t u r in g
C o m p a n y (B e ss e m e r P l a n t )
By W. C. Sleeman, Works Manager.
I n t e r n a t io n a l A sso c ia t io n of
M a c h in is t s , L odge 359,
By H. A. Schrader, J. H. Howard,
Grand Lodge Representatives.
A. H. Raines,
Committeeman, Lodge 359.
169
[Attachment to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17]
Birmingham, Alabama
December 19, 1941.
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company,
Birmingham, Alabama.
Gentlemen:
You are familiar with the fact that the classification
of employees set out in the Board’s Decision and Direc
tion of Elections, dated September 12 and November 19,
1941, is in some respects difficult of interpretation and
in minor respects inadvertent in the classification of
employees as has been recognized both by the Company
and by the respective bargaining agencies. The matter
having reached the Board, suggestion has been received
that the parties interested agree among themselves upon
a correction of the matter. Conference was accordingly
held on December 18, at the request of the Board, re
sulting in the following agreement between representa
tives of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee and
the International Association of Machinists, as to the
matter:
The following classifications are the classifications to
be considered as included in paragraph 2, page 6, group
2, of the Board’s Decision and Order: All machinists,
machinists apprentices, machinists helpers; employees in
tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handy-men and
cranemen, but excluding laborers and hook-ons; employees
classified as millwrights, production and maintenance
burners, welders, tackers, burners and welder helpers;
employees in the wheel and axle department except crane
hookers, wheel rollers and laborers; air brake production
employees classified as pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers,
and air brake testers; employees in steel erection de
partment classified as toolroom men and toolroom helpers
of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company,
170
171
Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders and cler
ical employees. Employees of the truck shop are prop
erly included in group 3.
We accordingly request that the company acquiesce in
the above agreement.
Yours very truly,
S t e e l w o r k e r s Or g a n iz in g
C o m m it t e e ,
By /&/ W. H. Crawford,
Field Representative.
I n t e r n a t io n a l A sso c ia t io n
op M a c h in is t s ,
L odge 359,
By / s / J. D. Baumgardner,
Business Representative.
ACCEPTED: as noted below.
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d
Ca r M a n u f a c t u r in g
Co m p a n y
(B e sse m e r P l a n t )
By /s / W. C. Sleeman,
Its Manager of Works
NOTE: Assuming that the foregoing is satisfactory
to the Board, and subject to Board orders.
172
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 18
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this
June 13, 1944 between Pullman-Standard Car Manufac
turing Company, hereinafter referred to as the “ Com
pany” , for its plant located in the City of Bessmer, State
of Alabama, and the International Association of Ma
chinists, Lodge No. 359, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, hereinafter referred to as the “ As
sociation” , as the exclusive representative and bargain
ing agent of all employees of the Company as defined
and set forth in the second paragraph of the National
Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, certification, case
No. R-2952, dated November 19, 1941, as supplemented
or clarified by letter of the respective unions to the
Company dated December 19, 1941:
* * * *
11. SENIORITY.
Seniority of employees covered by this agreement shall
be confined to the department employed in each of the
following departments :
Tool and Die Shop
Wheel and Axle Shop
Air-Brake Department
Welders
Millwrights.
Seniority starts from the day of employment. When
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall
be reduced.
Nothing herein shall affect the application or definition
of the term “ length of service” or a similar term as
contained in the Company’s group insurance, contribu
tory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan for
173
hourly and piece-work employees as amended July 14,
1941 and extended to cover the year 1944.
Notice will be given to the men affected before reduc
tion is made, five days in advance, unless conditions
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be
furnished the Shop Committee.
The last man employed shall be the first laid off,
except that due to nature of the work on production
tracks the present practice in the welders and air-brake
departments will continue, in that the men affected will
take lay off without regard to seniority, provided, how
ever, that in case of permanent lay-off seniority will
govern.
In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will
be given preference of re-employment, if available within
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former
positions if practicable.
A copy of the seniority list will be made available at
least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice
posted that copy is available in the employment office to
the employees listed.
New employees are on probation for three months,
during which time they may be laid off or dischai ged
as exclusively determined by the Company.
174
SUPPLEMENT
[Attached to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 10-R-1212
In the matter o f :
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d C a r M a n u f a c t u r in g C o m p a n y ,
B e s s e m e r , A l a b a m a P l a n t
a n d
U n it e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of A m e r ic a CIO
It is hereby agreed by and between United Steelwork
ers of America, Local No. 1466, by R. M. Poarch and
Dan R. Houston, and International Association of Ma
chinists, Lodge No. 359, by J. C. McGlon and J. D. Bum-
gardner as follows:
1. All machinists, machinist apprentices, machinist
helpers; employees in tool and die shop classified as die
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers,
handy-men and crane men, but excluding laborers and
hook-ons; also all millwrights employed by Pullman-
Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Ala
bama; excluding all foremen, leaders and clerical em
ployees, constitute an appropriate unit within the mean
ing of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act. It is further agreed that the International Associa
tion of Machinists represents the employees in such unit
and that it shall be recognized as exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in such unit by the Pull
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company.
2. It is agreed that all employees classified as produc
tion and maintenance burners, welders, tackers, burner
175
and welder helpers; employees in the wheel and axle de
partment; airbrake production employees classified as
pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers and airbrake testers; em
ployees in erection department classified as toolroom men
and toolroom helpers, excluding foremen, leaders and
clerical employees shall be added to or included in the
appropriate unit represented at the present time by the
United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 1466. It is
agreed that United Steelworkers of America represents
the employees in such unit as thus enlarged and that
the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company will
recognize the United Steelworkers of America, Local No.
1466, as the exclusive bargaining representative of such
employees.
This June 14, 1944.
I n t e r n a t io n a l A sso c ia t io n
o f M a c h in is t s
By /s / J. D. Baumgardner
By / s / J. C. McGlon
U n it e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of
A m e r ic a CIO
L o c a l N o . 1466
By /s / R. M. Poarch
By /&/ Dan R. Houston
Witnessed by :
/ s / Paul L. Kuelthan,
Regional Atty., N. L. R. B.
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company has
taken no position in the matter of selection of a bargain
ing representative by its employees and therefore does
176
not assume responsibility for the above and foregoing
agreement between the respective unions heretofore certi
fied by the National Labor Relations Board but being of
the opinion that present controversy as to bargaining
units is not in aid of harmonious operation of the Besse
mer plant hereby acquiesces in the foregoing agreement
and agrees for the duration of its existing contracts with
the respective unions to recognize them, respectively, as
exclusive bargaining agents for the bargaining units so
defined, subject to any valid order or directive by public
authority or requirement of law to the contrary.
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d
Ca r M a n u f a c t u r in g
Co m p a n y
By / s / W. C. Sleeman.
6-14-44
177
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 19
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
It is agreed this 6th day of October, 1944, between
the International Association of Machinists, Lodge No.
359, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
and the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company,
Bessemer, Alabama Plant, to amend Section 8 “Vaca
tions” ; Section 10 “ Reporting time” ; Section 11 “ Sen
iority; and add Section 11-A; Section 11-B; and Section
1 1 -C : * * * *
SECTION 11. SENIORITY.
Seniority of employees covered by this agreement shall
be confined to the department employed in each of the
following departments:
Tool and Die Shop,
Millwrights,
and confined within their respective classification as fol
lows; machinists, apprentices, die men, machine opera
tors, toolroom men, helpers and handy men, cranemen,
and millwrights.
Seniority starts from the day of employment. When
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall
be reduced.
Notice shall be given to the men affected before re
duction is made, five days in advance, unless conditions
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be
furnished the Shop Committee.
The last man employed shall be the first man laid off.
178
In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will
be given preference of re-employment, if available within
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former
positions if practicable. ^
A copy of the seniority list will be made available at
least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice
posted that copy is available in the employment office
to the employees listed.
New employees are on probation for three months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged as
exclusively determined by the Company.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been
laid off the employee does not return to work within
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord
ing to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each
employee to advise the Company in writing of any
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration of
leave of absence.
Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for
the purpose of placing his name on the department list.
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be
placed on the department seniority list as of the date
of employment in their respective classifications. Sen
iority lists will be made up as soon after October 1,
1944 as possible and posted in each department. Unless
a written protest is made to the employment office with
in thirty (30) days after posting by men in active serv
ice of the Company or if not in active service, within
30 days after return to active service, length of service
179
and dates thereon shall not be changed and the list shall
be considered approved and binding. There is to be no
penalty in applying seniority before or during the thirty
(30) day period the list is subject to approval of em
ployees.
When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of work
man, he shall exercise his departmental seniority as
shown on the departmental seniority list.
Any employee other than a temporary employee who
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not retain his
seniority earned, but his seniority shall be accumulated
during his entire period of such active service, for the
purpose of seniority only; i.e., his position on the sen
iority list in accordance with provisions of the Federal
law.
Any such employee who shall make application for re
employment within sixty days after having been relieved
from such service shall be restored to his former posi
tion or one of like seniority, status and pay provided
that he is in possession of a certificate of honorable
discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medical
examination customarily given to all applicants for em
ployment and provided that the circumstances of the
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.
* * * *
1 8 0
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 33
AGREEMENT
This agreement, dated April 7, 1942 between Pullman-
Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer Plant
(hereinafter referred to as the “ Company” ), and Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466, or its
successor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Union” ) :
SECTION 1.
The bargaining unit covered by this agreement, by
which the Union is recognized as the exclusive collec
tive bargaining agent, subject to any change required
by law, shall be as per the third paragraph of the Na
tional Labor Relations Board certification, dated No
vember 19, 1941 as supplemented or clarified by letter
of the respective unions to the Company dated December
19, 1941. * * * *
SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol
lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors
“b” , “ c” , and “ d” are relatively equal, length of con
tinuous service shall govern:
a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the em
ployee does not return to work within ten (10) days
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com
pany employment records; (d) lay-off of one or more
years’ duration.
1 8 1
Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con
tributory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan
for hourly and piece work employees as amended July
14, 1941.
New employees are on probation for three months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged
as exclusively determined by the Company.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men
are finishing assigned work requiring two weeks, or less,
to complete.
The Company reserves the right in case of shutdown
to retain such employees as will best fit the Company’s
needs. Under such conditions there will be no restric
tions as to the kind of work performed by leaders, fore
men or force retained.
* * * *
1 8 2
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 34
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 6, 1944, between
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse
mer, Alabama Plant (hereinafter referred to as the
“ Company” ), and United Steelworkers of America in be
half of Local No. 1466, or its successor (hereinafter re
ferred to as the “Union” .)
* * *
SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol
lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors
“b” , “ e” , and “d” are relatively equal, length of con
tinuous service shall govern:
a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been
laid off the employee does not return to work within
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord
ing to the Company employment records; (d) lay-off of
one or more years’ duration.
Nothing herein shall affect the application or definition
of the term “ length of service” or a similar term as
contained in the Company’s group insurance, contribu
tory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan for
hourly and piece work employees as amended July 14,
1941 and extended to cover the year 1944.
New employees are on probation for three months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged
as exclusively determined by the Company.
183
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men
are finishing assigned work requiring two weeks, or less,
to complete.
The Company reserves the right in case of shut-down
to retain such employees as will best fit the Company’s
needs. Under such conditions there will be no restric
tions as to the kind of work performed by leaders, fore
men or force retained, but this provision is not applicable
to production work continuing one week or more.
Any employee other than a temporary employee who
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not only re
tain his seniority earned, but his seniority shall be ac
cumulated during the entire period of such active service.
Any such employee who shall make application for re
employment within forty (40) days after having been
relieved from such service shall be restored, to his former
position or one of like seniority, status and pay pro
vided that he is in possession of a certificate of honor
able discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medi
cal examination customarily given to all applicants for
employment and provided that the circumstances of the
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.
* * * *
184
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 35
MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
It is agreed this 30th day of September, 1944, be
tween the United Steelworkers of America, Local No.
1466, and the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing
Company, Bessemer, Alabama, plant to amend Section
6, “Vacations” and Article 7, “ Seniority” , 7-A and “ Re
porting Time” Section 7-B, also 7-C “Leave of Absence” ,
as follows:
* * * *
SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol
lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors
shall be considered, and where “ factors “b” and “ c” are
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall govern:
A— Continuous service.
B— Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been
laid off the employee does not return to work within ten
(10) days after notice is sent to the address according
to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each
employee to advise the Company in writing of any
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration
of leave of absence.
Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall
185
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for
the purpose of placing his name on the department list.
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be
placed on the department seniority list as of the date
of employment in their respective departments. Seniority
lists will be made up as soon after October 1, 1944 as
possible and posted in each department. Unless a written
protest is made to the employment office within thirty
(30) days after posting by men in active service of the
Company or if not in active service, within 30 days after
return to active service, length of service and dates
thereon shall not be changed and the list shall be con
sidered approved and binding. There is to be no penalty
in applying seniority before or during the thirty (30)
day periods the list is subject to approval of employees.
New employees are on probation for three (3) months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged
as exclusively determined by the Company, provided this
shall not be used because of membership in the Union.
After the three (3) months probationary period has
expired they shall cease to be probationary employees
and shall be entered on the seniority list of the de
partment in which they are working at the time the
probation period expires and shall rank for seniority
from the date they entered said department. There shall
be no seniority among probationary employees. Depart
mental seniority will prevail for all employees other than
probationary employees.
When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of work
man, he shall exercise his departmental seniority as
shown on the departmental seniority list.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men
are finishing assigned work requiring two calendar weeks,
or less, to complete except as hereinafter provided. When
an employee because of his exceptional ability is trans
1 8 6
ferred from one department to another by the manage
ment, he shall retain and continue to accumulate sen
iority in the department from which he was transferred
and his name shall also be entered upon the seniority
list of his new department, as of the date of his enter
ing the new department. No employee so transferred
shall hold seniority in more than two (2) departments;
i.e., his original department and the department in which
he is now working.
An employee who is transferred from one department
to another for any reason whatever except on orders
from the Management shall relinquish seniority in the
department from which he is transferred and shall start
as a new employee in the department to which he is
transferred and his name shall be entered on the new
department seniority list as of the first day worked in
the new department. An employee so transferred must
make written request.
In the event of a reduction in forces of more than
two calendar weeks employees who are laid off but who
have satisfactorily completed their probationary periods
and whose names appear on their respective depart
mental seniority lists will be allowed to displace proba
tionary employees in other departments providing the
laid off employee has the required qualifications and
ability to perform the work. But such laid off em
ployee’s name shall not appear on his new or temporary
departmental seniority lists unless he requests a trans
fer in which case his name will appear as of the date
entered this new or temporary department, and in such
case he shall automatically relinquish his seniority in
his former department.
In case of shutdown the Company will retain such
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs and under
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen, or force
187
retained, but this provision is not applicable to produc
tion work continuing one week or more.
Employees already assigned to work on an order shall
not exercise seniority on new or other orders except
that if an employee is not given work on a new order
within two calendar weeks after the completion of the
previous order on which he worked, then he shall be
authorized to exercise departmental seniority in getting
a like occupation on any going order requiring two cal
endar weeks or more to complete.
Any employee other than a temporary employee who
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not only re
tain his seniority earned, but his seniority shall be ac
cumulated during his entire period of such active serv
ice, for the purpose of seniority only; i.e., his position
on the seniority list in accordance with provisions of the
Federal law.
Any such employee who shall make application for
re-employment within sixty days after having been re
lieved from such service shall be restored to his former
position or one of like seniority, status and pay provided
that he is in possession of a certificate of honorable dis
charge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medical ex
amination customarily given to all applicants for employ
ment and provided that the circumstances of the Com
pany have not so changed as to make it impossible or
unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.
* *• * *
188
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 38
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 6, 1947, between
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse
mer, Alabama Plant (hereinafter referred to as the
“ Company” ), and United Steelworkers of America in
behalf of Local No. 1466, or its successor (hereinafter
referred to as the “Union” ) .
* * * *
SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol
lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors
“ B” and “ C” are relatively equal, length of continuous
service shall govern:
A— Continuous Service.
B-—Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.
Senioi'ity shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been
laid off the employee does not return to work within
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord
ing to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each
employee to advise the Company in writing of any
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration of
leave of absence.
Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for
the purpose of placing his name on the department list.
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be
189
pxaced on the department seniority list as of the date of
employment in their respective departments. Seniority
lists will be made up as of June 1 and posted in each
department. Unless a written protest is made to the
employment office within thirty (30) days after posting
by men in active service of the Company or if not in
active service, within 30 days after return to active
service, length of service and dates thereon shall not
be changed and the list shall be considered approved and
binding. There is to be no penalty in applying seniority
before or during the thirty (30) day period the list is
subject to approval of employees.
New employees are on probation for three (3) months,
during which time they may be laid off or discharged
as exclusively determined by the Company, provided this
shall not be used because of membership in the Union.
After the three (3) months probationary period has ex
pired they shall cease to be probationary employees and
shall be entered on the occupational seniority list of the
department in which they are working at the time the
probation period expires and shall rank for occupational
seniority from the date they entered said department.
There shall be no seniority among probationary em
ployees.
Occupational seniority within a department will pre
vail for all employees other than probationary employees.
When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of a
workman, he shall exercise his seniority as shown on the
seniority list.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
occupation or department, nor exercise seniority in cases
where men are finishing assigned work requiring two
calendar weeks, or less, to complete except as herein
after provided.
When an employee because of his exceptional ability
is transferred by the management, he shall retain and
190
continue to accumulate seniority in the occupation from
which he was transferred and his name shall also be
entered upon the seniority list of his new department
as of the date of his entering the new department. No
employee so transferred shall hold seniority in more than
two (2) occupations; i.e., his original occupation and the
occupation in which he is now working.
An employee who is transferred from one occupation
in a department to the same or other occupation in the
same department or another department for any reason
whatever except on orders from the Management shall
relinquish seniority in the occupation from which he is
transferred and shall start as a new employee in the
occupation to which he is transferred and his name shall
be entered on the new occupational seniority list as of
the first day worked in the new occupation or depart
ment. An employee so transferred must make written
request.
In the event of a reduction in forces of more than two
calendar weeks employees who are laid off but who have
satisfactorily completed their probationary periods and
whose names appear on their respective seniority lists
will be allowed to displace probationary employees in
other occupations providing the laid off employee has
the required qualifications and ability to perform the
work. But such laid off employee’s name shall not ap
pear on his new or temporary occupation seniority list
unless he requests a transfer in which case his name
will appear as of the date entered this new or temporary
occupation and in such case he shall automatically re
linquish his seniority in his former occupation.
In case of shutdown the Company will retain such
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs and under
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen, or force
191
retained, but this provision is not applicable to produc
tion work continuing one week or more.
Employees already assigned to work on an order shall
not exercise seniority on new or other orders except that
if an employee is not given work on a new order within
two calendar weeks after the completion of the previous
order on which he worked, then he shall be authorized
to exercise seniority in getting a like occupation on any
going order requiring two calendar weeks or more to
complete.
Any employee other than a temporary employee who
has entered the Armed Forces of the United States by
conscription or voluntary enlistment in accordance with
the provisions of Selective Service and Training Act of
1940 as amended, shall not only retain his seniority
earned, but his seniority shall be accumulated during
his entire period of such active service, for the purpose
of seniority only; i.e., his position on the seniority list
in accordance with provisions of the Federal law.
Any such employee who shall make application for
reemployment within ninety (90) days after having
been relieved from such service shall be restored to his
former position or one of like seniority, status and pay
provided that he is in possession of a certificate of honor
able discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medi
cal examination customarily given to all applicants for
employment and provided that the circumstances of the
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.
Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con
tributory retirement income and pension plan.
< ! • * * • *
192
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 41
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated August 26, 1954, be
tween PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTUR
ING COMPANY, Bessemer, Alabama Plant, (herein
after referred to as the “ Company” ) and the UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter referred
to as the “Union” ) .
* * * *
SECTION 12. SENIORITY
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol
lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors
“ B” and “ C” are relatively equal, length of continuous
service shall govern:
A— Continuous Service.
B— Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been
laid off the employee does not return to work within ten
(10) days after notice is sent to the address according
to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each
employee to advise the Company in writing of any change
of address) ; (d) absence due to layoff or a disability
other than a comparable disability, in excess of two (2)
years for those employees with seniority up to ten (10)
years at the commencement of such layoff, and absence
due to layoff or a disability, other than compensable
disability, in excess of three (3) years for those em
ployees with ten (10) or more years of seniority at the
commencement of such layoff; (e) absence for a period
exceeding that for which statutory compensation was
payable due to an injury received in the course of em
193
ployment; (f) failure to return to work at expiration
of leave of absence.
Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of
May 1, 1936, and shown on the Company’s records as of
September 30, 1944, and such accumulated service shall
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for
the purpose of placing his name on the department list.
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be
placed on the department seniority list as of the date of
employment in their respective departments. Seniority
lists will be made up as of June 1 and posted in each
department. Unless a written protest is made to the
Employment Office within thirty (30) days after posting
by men in active service of the Company or if not in
active service, within thirty (30) days after return to
active service, length of service and dates thereon shall
not be changed and the list shall be considered approved
and binding. There is to be no penalty in applying sen
iority before or during the thirty (30) day period the
list is subject to approval of employees.
New employees are on probation for forty-five (45)
days of work, during which time they may be laid off
or discharged as exclusively determined by the Company,
provided this shall not be used because of membership
in the Union. However, the employment of a probation
ary employee shall not be terminated while he is absent
from work due to personal illness or a non-occupational
injury, provided that (1) such absence does not exceed
six (6) months in the aggregate during his probationary
period, and (2) he furnishes proof to the Company that
such absence was due to personal illness or non-occupa
tional injury. After the forty-five (45) days of work
probationary period has expired, they shall cease to be
probationary employees and shall be entered on the de
partmental seniority list of the department in which
194
they are working at the time the probation period ex
pires and shall rank for departmental seniority from
the date they entered said department. There shall be
no seniority among probationary employees.
Departmental seniority will prevail for all employees
other than probationary employees.
Employees promoted to supervisory positions shall re
tain and continue to accumulate seniority and when re
duced in rank to that of a workman, they shall exercise
their departmental seniority as shown on the seniority
list.
An employee hereafter transferred to a position out
side of the bargaining unit, other than a position of
supervisor over employees in the bargaining unit, shall
lose his seniority in the bargaining unit at the time of
such transfer.
An employee who is transferred from one department
to another department for any reason whatsoever except
on orders from the management shall relinquish seniority
in the department from which he is transferred and shall
start as a new employee in the department to which he
is transferred and his name shall be entered on the new
department seniority list as of the first day worked in
the new department. An employee so transferred must
make written request.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department, except as provided in the following five
paragraphs:
When an employee because of his exceptional
ability is transferred by the management, he shall
retain and continue to accumulate seniority in the
department from which he was transferred and his
name shall also be entered upon the seniority list of
his new department as of the date of his entering
the new department. No employee so transferred
195
shall hold seniority in more than two (2) depart
ments; i.e., his original department and the depart
ment in which he is now working. An employee
transferred at the request of management shall be
returned by management within a period of one (1)
year from date of transfer to his original depart
ment from which transferred. When the job to
which management transferred the employee is com
pleted, the employee shall be returned to his original
department and shall lose any accumulated seniority
in the department to which he was transferred im
mediately upon his leaving such department. If,
however, at the time of completion of the job on
which he is working, there is no work available in
his original department, he shall continue working
in his new or temporary department until such time
as his seniority in his original department warrants
him a job. If the employee so transferred elects to
remain in the new department, he shall relinquish
seniority in the department from which he is trans
ferred and shall start as a new employee in the
department to which he is transferred and his name
shall be entered on the new department seniority
list as of the first day worked in the new depart
ment. An employee so transferred must make writ
ten request.
An employee laid off for lack of work in his de
partment for a period that is expected to exceed
five (5) working days shall be given preference in
other departments before the Company hires new
men, provided such employee has seniority and the
ability to perform the work.
Laid off employees desiring to work in other de
partments must present Drop Slips to the Employ
ment Office, at which time they shall be presented
with “ Request for Work” forms which they must
196
fill in and sign, duplicate to be retained by employee
after being endorsed by the Employment Manager
or his representative. Employees laid off must pre
sent their Drop Slips to the Employment Office as
soon as possible. They will waive any “plant” sen
iority rights until they have done so.
An employee laid off because of lack of work in
his department for a period that is expected to ex
ceed five (5) working days and who has satisfac
torily completed his probationary period and whose
name appears on his department seniority list, will
be allowed to displace probationary employees in
other departments, provided the laid off employee
has the qualifications and ability to perform the work
equal to that of the probationary employee involved,
and provided he informs the Employment Depart
ment in writing of his desire at the time of layoff.
Any laid off employee given work in another de
partment shall hold seniority in his new depart
ment as of the date of entering that department
and shall be notified to return to his original de
partment according to his seniority. If the employee
elects to remain in the department in which he is
working and does remain therein, his seniority in
that department shall date from the last day he
entered it and his seniority in his former depart
ment shall be terminated. If after such laid off
employee is assigned to a job in another department
management relieves him from performing the job
because of his lack of ability, such employee shall
lose any accumulated seniority in that department
but shall retain his seniority in his former de
partment.
Employees on the track or related departments (Truck
Shop, Steel Construction, Welding, Steel Erection, Air
Brake, Wood Erection and Paint-Shipping Track) al
197
ready assigned to work on an order shall not exercise
seniority on new or other orders except that if an em
ployee is not given work on a new order within five (5)
work days after the completion of the previous order on
which he worked, then he shall be authorized to exer
cise seniority in getting a like occupation on any going-
order requiring five (5) working days or more to com
plete. However, when it is known that the track on
which he worked will not start before five (5) working
days, the employee shall signify to his foreman his in
tention to exercise his seniority on the going track or
order at the time of completion of work on the order
on which he is working, then he shall be placed on the
going track or order not later than one day after com
pletion of the order on which he worked.
Except in the case of a temporary layoff (not to ex
ceed three (3) work days) employees shall be laid off
on a departmental basis in accordance with their de
partmental seniority. After the laid-off employee is sent
his notice of recall, the foreman may fill the position
with any employee available, regardless of seniority,
until such time as the laid off employee returns and is
ready to go to work.
In changing over tracks from one car order to an
other, where it is necessary to realign highlines and
change equipment in different positions of the track,
such work is to be done by maintenance employees regu
larly assigned to that work, such as pipefitters, mill-
rights, electricians, welders, etc.
In the event of a reduction of more than five (5)
work days in the work force in any department, the
Grievance Committeeman (who must have at least two
(2) years’ seniority in the plant), if there is any in that
department, shall be retained if the reduction in work
force in that department continues to the point at which
he would otherwise be laid off, provided he is capable of
198
performing the work remaining in his department. If
a Grievance Committeeman is working in a department
to which he was transferred by management, this section
shall apply only to the department from which he was
transferred.
The Chairman of the Grievance Committee will be
given a daily written report of hires, quits, discharges,
recalls, layoffs, transfers, leaves of absence, and retire
ments of employees in the bargaining unit on the second
work day following same.
# • * #
199
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 42
AGREEMENT
This Agreement dated this 27th day of August, 1956
is between P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d Ca r M a n u f a c t u r in g
Co m p a n y , a Delaware Corporation, (hereinafter referred
to as the “ Company” ) and U n it e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of
A m e r ic a , an international labor organization, (herein
after referred to as the “Union” ) .
* * * *
S e c t io n II.
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement relates only to the Company’s Besse
mer, Butler, Pullman Car Works, Worcester, Hammond
and Hammond Wheel plants.
The term “ employee” as used in this Agreement ap
plies to those employees of the Company employed in or
around said plants and with respect to each of said
plants the term “ employee” shall be defined as follows:
Butler Plant—All maintenance and production em
ployees of the Company employed in and about the Com
pany’s plant located at Butler, Pennsylvania, including
Railroad Switching Department, Leaders, Testers and
Production Checkers; however, excluding Foremen, As
sistant Foremen, Watchmen, Guards, Office Employees,
Supervisors, Shop Clerical Employees, Expediters, Nurses,
Safety Director and Assistants, and all monthly rated
employees.
Bessemer Plant—All production and maintenance em
ployees of the Company employed in and about the Com
pany’s plant located at Bessemer, Alabama, including
watchmen and plant protection employees, but exclud
ing superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen, leaders,
2 0 0
time clerks, clerical employees, office employees, any
salaried employees doing no manual labor in the plant,
salesmen, or any of the management and also excluding
employees represented by the International Association
of Machinists, which includes millwrights, and all Die
and Tool employees except welders, laborers, and hookons.
Pullman Car Works Passenger Car Plant—All pro
duction and maintenance employees of the Company em
ployed in and about the Company’s Pullman Car Works,
Passenger Car Plant, located at Chicago, Illinois, includ
ing watchmen, production instructors and factory clerks
of the Pullman Car Works, Passenger Car Plant, ex
cluding executives, foremen, assistant foremen, leaders,
bill-makers, roundsmen, rate clerks, price setters (time
study men), chief clerks and salary roll employees in
the factory, general office employees on the payroll of the
manager, superintendent, employment, purchasing and
stores, engineering, accounting, safety and dispensary,
training department, stationary engineers, production
and maintenance electricians, and metal polishers, buf
fers, regularly assigned platers and helpers, and armed
guards.
Worcester Plant—All production, maintenance and
stores employees of the Company employed in and about
the Company’s Worcester, Massachusetts plant, includ
ing gang leaders, but excluding foremen, assistant fore
men, leaders, time clerks, watchmen, any salaried em
ployee doing no manual labor in the plant, clerical
workers, office employees and salesmen. It is agreed
that under no circumstances whatever are powerhouse
employees to suspend performance of their assigned
duties.
Hammond Works—All production and maintenance
employees of the Company employed in and about the
Hammond Works of the Company located at Hammond,
Indiana, including inspectors, factory clerks, and leaders,
2 0 1
but excluding general office employees, foremen, assistant
foremen, nurses, safety director and assistants, time
study men and watchmen.
Hammond Car Wheel Plant—All production and main
tenance employees of the Company employed in and about
the Hammond Car Wheel Plant of the Company located
at Hammond, Indiana, excluding clerical employees, su
pervisory employees, leaders who are assistant foremen,
A. A.R. clerks and watchmen.
# * * *
Se c t io n VI.
SENIORITY
A. Seniority Status of Employees
The parties recognize that promotion opportunity and
job security in event of promotions, decreases of forces,
and rehirings after layoffs should increase in proportion
to length of continuous service, and that in the adminis
tration of this Section the intent will be that wherever
practicable full consideration shall be given continuous
service in such cases.
In recognition, however, of the responsibility of Man
agement for the efficient operation of the works, it is
understood and agreed that in all cases o f :
1. Promotion (except promotions to positions excluded
under the definition of “ employees” in Section II—
S co pe of A g r e e m e n t ) the following factors as listed
below shall be considered; however, only where factor
“b” is relatively equal shall factor “a” length of con
tinuous service be the determining factor:
a. Continuous service,
b. Ability to perform the work, which includes phy
sical fitness.
2 0 2
2. Decrease in forces or rehirings after layoffs the fol
lowing factors as listed below shall be considered,
however, only where factor “b” is relatively equal
shall factor “a” length of continuous service be the
determining factor:
a. Continuous service,
b. Ability to perform the work, which includes
physical fitness.
3. In the case of decrease of forces and subsequent in
crease of forces, the senior employee who has pre
viously demonstrated his “ ability to perform the
work” shall not be questioned on relative ability pro
vided he otherwise qualifies on “physical fitness.”
B. Establishment of Plant Seniority Rules.
To the end of encouraging application of the principle
that employment security should increase with continu
ous service, consistent with Subsection A above, in con
nection with promotions, layoffs and rehiring after lay
offs, the appropriate representatives of the Company and
the Union at each plant, shall if request is made of either
party, review the existing local seniority agreement. The
representative duly designated by the International Union
for this purpose and the Company Industrial Relations
Executive (or his representative) shall be available to
advise and consult with the plant representatives of the
parties. Any revised agreements on which the local plant
representatives of the parties may agree shall be placed
in effect as soon as possible.
The existing seniority unit or units for application of
the seniority factors, including service dates within these
units, covered by existing local agreements, shall remain
in effect unless or until modified by local written agree
ment signed by Management and the local union nego
tiating committee. Hereafter local seniority agreements
203
shall be signed by the local union committee, who are to
post such agreements in the plant.
C. Calculation of Continuous Service
Continuous service shall be calculated for the purpose
of establishing seniority lists under this contract in ac
cordance with the rule or rules set forth in individual
plan agreements as were in effect on August 31, 1956.
There shall be no deduction for any time lost which
does not constitute a break in continuous service.
Continuous service shall be broken by:
a. Quit.
b. Discharge.
c. Failure to return to work within five (5) days after
receipt of notification by registered or certified letter
or telegram to his address last furnished the Com
pany (it being the sole duty of the individual em
ployee to inform the Company of changes of ad
dress) .
d. Absence due to layoff or a disability other than a
compensable disability, in excess of two (2) years for
those employees with seniority up to ten (10) years
at the commencement of such absence; and, absence
due to layoff or a disability, other than a compensa
ble disability in excess of three (3) years for those
employees with ten (10) or more years of seniority
at the commencement of such absence.
e. Failure to return to work at the expiration of leave
of absence,
D. Probationary Employees
New employees of the Company which includes those
hired after a loss of seniority, shall be considered proba
204
tionary employees for the first thirty (30) days they
work. If laid off during this probationary period due to
lack of work, they shall be the first to be returned to
work after all qualified men are working, provided that
at the time of layoff they notify the Employment Office.
When such new employees are laid off they must present
Drop Slips to the Employment Office, at which time they
shall be presented with “ Request for Work” forms which
they must fill in and sign. The Company shall have ex
clusive right to lay off or discharge for cause any such
probationary employee at any time, provided this provi
sion shall not be used for purposes of discrimination
against the Union. Probationary employees may file and
process grievances under this Agreement. The employ
ment of a probationary employee shall not be terminated
while he is absent from work due to personal illness or
a non-occupational injury, provided that (1) such absence
does not exceed six (6) months in the aggregate during
his probationary period, and (2) he furnishes proof to
the Company that such absence was due to personal ill
ness or a non-occupational injury. The employment of a
probationary employee shall be terminated in the event
he is laid off due to a lack of work for a period in excess
of six (6) months during his probationary period. Names
of such probationary employees after their 30th day
worked shall be placed on the seniority list as of the last
date of hire.
E. Leaves of Absence
Employees, upon written application setting forth good
cause, may be granted a written leave of absence by the
Company without pay and without loss of seniority,
except as provided in Section X V — V a c a t io n s , Subsec
tion A.
Leaves of absence for the purpose of accepting posi
tions with the International or Local Unions shall be
available to a reasonable number of employees. Ade
205
quate notice of intent to apply for leave shall be afforded
local plant Management to enable proper provision to be
made to fill the job to be vacated.
Leaves of absence shall be for a period of not in excess
of one year and may be renewed for a further period of
one year. Continuous service shall not be broken by the
leave of absence but will continue to accrue.
F. Seniority Lists
The Company shall make available to the Local Union
concerned lists showing the relative continuous service
of each employee in each seniority unit. Such lists shall
be revised by the Company from time to time, as nec
essary, but at least every six months, to keep them rea
sonably up-to-date. The seniority rights of individual
employees shall in no way be prejudicd by errors, inac
curacies, or omissions in such lists.
Employees promoted to supervisory positions shall re
tain and continue to accumulate seniority and when
reduced in rank to that of a workman, they shall exer
cise their departmental seniority as shown on the senior
ity list.
An employee hereafter transferred to a position out
side of the bargaining unit, other than a position of
supervisor over employees in the bargaining unit, shall
lose his seniority in the bargaining unit at the time of
such transfer.
The Chairman of the Grievance Committee will be
given a daily written report of hires, quits, discharges,
recalls, layoffs, transfers, leaves of absence, and retire
ments of employees in the bargaining unit on the second
work day following same.
206
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENTS
OF
PULLMAN’S BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA PLANT
1965
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 50
Department Whites Blacks
Shear 132 0
Press 101 0
Punch 146 0
Forge 56 0
Construction 171 0
Steel Erection 330 5
Welding 661 0
Paint & Equipment 352 9
Shipping 12 0
Steel Stores 73 1
Bolt & Rivet 5 0
Tool Room 4 0
Die & Tool 89 0
Maintenance (actually Millwright) 36 0
Electrical & Cranes 123 0
Machine Repair 19 0
Truck, Wheel & Axle 56 0
Garage 9 0
Non-Skilled Pool (Hookons and Laborers 84 0
Carpenter Shop 14 0
Railroad 22 0
Powerhouse 10 0
Wood Erection
Wood Planning
Inspection 18 0
Pattern & Template 3 0
Storeroom 1 0
Bricklayers 4 0
207
Memorandum of the position taken by Mr. Howard of
AF of L regarding various sections of proposed contract
— 12/9/41.
Section 1. Agreement
AF of L contends agreement is to be between Company
and the Association and not employees as represented
by Association. They will accept the truck shop employ
ees as referred to in Board Certification but say they
do not want them.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 51
* * * *
208
Bessemer— March 2,1943
United Steelworkers of America
Meeting with Contract Committee:
A meeting was held with the contract committee at
4:00 P.M. at the General office, with the following
present:
For the Union:
B. F. Gage— Union representative
R. F. Aldridge (w)
J. H. Smith (w)
J. I. Odom (w)
McKinley McCreary (c)
Perry L. Thompson (c)
For the Company:
W. C. Sleeman
0. A. Wiltsie
* * * *
One of the colored committeemen, McKinley McCreary,
asked Mr. Sleeman if there were not a provision for a
man drawing out of the Union on 15 days notice. * * *
* * *
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 65
*
209
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 66—FIRST DOCUMENT
Inter-Department Correspondence
Subject: LABOR TROUBLE
Please Refer To File C.I.O.
Bessemer, Alabama,
January 10, 1944
MEMORANDUM:
Capt. Walter C. Smith, Chief Industrial Labor Rela
tions Officer, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta, came to
plant at approximately 3:30 today in response to Mr.
Sleeman’s telephone conversation with Captain Smith
(not Walter C.) of this morning.
* * * *
At approximately 7:00 P.M. Capt. Smith returned to
Mr. Sleeman’s office and advised the men voted not to
return to work and they would have another meeting
Tuesday, January 11th, at which time they would vote
to strike. Capt. Smith stated a number of the negroes
wanted to return to work and several of them threatened
to frighten Preacher McCreary, stating he was the one
who was causing the men to strike. Capt. Smith also
told Sleeman in his opinion McCreary was the one man
who was the cause of the trouble. The conversation be
tween Capt. Smith and Sleeman at approximately 7 :30
P.M. was held in the presence of Capt. Smith, Sleeman
and Mr. Ellithorpe. Capt. Smith also stated it was dif
ficult for him to talk to these negroes, as they appeared to
be of a class that would not understand the ordinary
conversation.
W. C. Sleeman
2 1 0
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 66—SECOND DOCUMENT
Inter-Department Correspondence
Subject: LABOR TROUBLE
Please Refer To File C.I.O.
Bessemer, Alabama,
January 10, 1944
MEMORANDUM:
For several days there has been sand house talk among
the negroes that when we went to the Goverenment cars
they intended to strike on account of the action taken
by the Regional Labor Board in denying a wage increase
and it also, in several cases, has come to our attention the
company would not accept the Regional Board’s decision.
On Monday morning at around 7 :30 A.M., as Mr. Slee-
man was driving into the plant he saw approximately 12
colored going out of the gate. He stopped them and asked
what was the matter. They stated they were going out.
Sleeman asked them why and if they were quitting. They
said they were not quitting, but were afraid to work.
Sleeman asked them why and after considerable ques
tioning, they stated they were afraid of someone throw
ing bombs on their porch at night and there was a re
luctance on their part to discuss the matter, other than to
say they were afraid. Two of these men recognized were
Franklyn from the track and Richard Gerrett from the
track, both colored. On checking the roll, it was found 61
colored had come into the plant and quit work and walked
out. There was a number of colored who had quit, how
ever and were sitting around the bath house doing nothing
2 1 1
when Mr. Green went around each bath house and told
them they would either have to go to work or be given
out cards. Those who went out were given out cards,
some marked “ Refused to work” and some marked “ Don’t
want to work.” A complete memorandum as to the
number present and number working, etc., is shown on
the attached exhibit.
Work in the shop was not stopped with the exception
of actually building the cars on the track. In this depart
ment, the white men and those who remained of the
colored were used in further lining the track up for pro
duction. The balance of the other departments continued
to work. There were, however, some few colored in the
other departments who did not work, but these were few
in number. * * * *
W. C. Sleeman
2 1 2
LABOR UNION— CIO
MEMORANDUM TO FILE
Bessemer—January 14, 1944
Meeting was held on Thursday, January 13, 1944.
Those present were:
Mr. V. C. Finch, United States Conciliation
Mr. Mead, Alabama Department of Labor
Major Street, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta
Captain Smith, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta
Major Smith, 4th Service Command, Birmingham
Mr. B. F. Gage, U.S.W. of A.
Mr. R. M. Poarch, U.S.W. of A.
W.O. Bradshaw, Shop committeeman
McKinley McCreary ( c ) , Shop committeeman
Perry Thompson (c), Shop committeeman
Gus Dickerson (c), Shop committeeman
Mr. W. C. Sleeman, representing the Company
Mr. F. W. Green, representing the Company
Mr. A. F. Smith, representing the Company
Mr. J. E. Bolen, representing the Company
Mr. James Davidson, representing the Company
Mrs. Grimes, representing the Company
The meeting was opened by Mr. Sleeman who ex
plained to those present that meeting had been requested
by Mr. Finch for the purpose of handling some griev
ances which the CIO representatives had brought up at
the hall and which they claimed were the cause of the
two-day strike. The conciliators were told that at the
present time there were no unsettled grievances on the
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 67
213
manager’s desk, neither did Mr. Green, the plant super
intendent, have any unsettled grievances on his desk.
And also that, in so far as we knew, no grievance had
been brought up that was not settled at the present time.
Mr. Gage was requested to present the grievance and
he advised that possibly the colored boys could explain
their grievances better inasmuch as they were the ones
affected.
McKinley McCreary (c) entered into a long statement
in connection with the transferring of men from the Bomb
Shop back to other departments, having particular
point on Frank Zeigler who had worked also in the Bomb
Shop and upon his having been laid off at the completion
of work in the Bomb Shop was placed in the Yard De
partment labor gang.
* * * *
214
Bessemer, Alabama
October 24, 1944
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 69
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING REGARDING
LABOR UNION C.I.O. CONTRACT
AMENDMENT
Meeting held in Mr. Sleeman’s Bessemer Office.
Present:
Messrs. W. C. Sleeman
J. E. Bolen
E. E. Perkins
H. G. Wesley
H. S. Thompson
A. F. Smith
SENIORITY
# * * *
2. Seniority, as it is now understood by the con
tract, means the position of a man in the departmental
seniority list for the purpose of hiring and laying off.
**
215
W. C. Sleeman
WCS/jc
cc: Messrs. D. L. Golden
W. C. Sleeman (Birmingham Office)
J. E. Bolen
E. E. Perkins
H. G. Wesley
H. S. Thompson
A. F. Smith
216
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 70
LABOR UNIONS— C.I.O.
Bessemer, Ala.,
May 26, 1945
CONFIDENTIAL
MR. N. B. JOHNSON: (2 copies)
* * * *
(2) In negotiations the Union asked for the following:
More liberal vacation plan
60%^ minimum rate
Job evaluation study
Elimination of Negro differentials
Piece work pay when working on sample oar
Job inequality adjustment
Closed shop for those represented
Retroactive shift differential
Top seniority for union officials
Altered grievance procedure
Retroactive pay on adjustment of job inequalities
Incentive bonus.
(3) It must be borne in mind that we are certain the
Union would never sign any joint request to the War
Labor Board to ask for the elimination of union main
tenance or a new escape clause and if it had come to a
point where the matter had to be again referred to the
War Labor Board for directive, we would have found
ourselves facing a new disposition of the above items,
some of which at this particular time would have been
difficult to dispose of, especially since there is now a
very active movement on the part of the colored to push
themselves to a point of doing the same job as the white
man. This has been confirmed to me by the fact that
representatives of the C.I.O. have stated to me that they
are having trouble all over the district with their colored
membership to the extent that in some of the plants
217
numbers of the colored have walked off the job, stating
that they have been advised if they don’t get what they
are after now, they never will get it and again am ad
vised that the F.E.P.C. have representatives in the dis
trict who are doing considerable work.
(4) We also know that in numerous meetings we have
had recently the colored representation always inject
negro differentials and that they should be permitted
to have negro leaders over the negro man.
(5) Had we forced the issue of union maintenance, a
fighting attitude upon the part of the union on several
of the bad items above mentioned would have put this
plant into such an upset condition and turmoil, little
production or cooperation from anyone could be expected
and the forestalling of these issues for another year by
going along with the old contract as it was with the
changes innumerated in our memorandum agreement
gives us a lever to combat for another year the very
things which might at the end of that time have an en
tirely different angle.
(6) Notwithstanding all of the above, we did what we
thought was in our best judgment, together with the ap
proval of Forney Johnston from a legal standpoint, the
best procedure to follow for Bessemer Plant. However,
had we been apprised of the fact that regardless of the
above existing conditions, the Management desired to
bring union maintenance out on the table again, we would
have followed that procedure, even if it meant shutting
down the plant, which probably would have been the
result.
W. C. S l e e m a n
218
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 7l
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e sp o n d e n c e
Bessemer, Alabama,
July 14, 1945
S u b j e c t : LABOR UNION— C.1.0.
P l e a s e R e f e r to F i l e : Grievance Committee Meeting
MEMORANDUM of meeting held in Mr. Sleeman’s office
at 4:30 P.M., July 11, 1945:
Present for Management: United States Arm y:
W. C. Sleeman Major H. N. Smith
J. E. Bolen Lt. Phil B. Armour
A. F. Smith
Representing C. I. 0 .:
R. M. Poarch, Representative
B. F. Gage, Representative
* * * *
Clarence Martin )
J. M. Herring )
Hewitt Fields ) Committeemen
Allen Richardson )
E. B. Jackson )
(4) E. B. Jackson then stated that the differential be
tween the rates for white employees and colored employ
ees was too great on account of the skill of the colored
employees.
* * * *
A. F. Smith
219
Birmingham, Ala.
May 29, 1947
C.I.O.
MEMORANDUM:
* * * *
(7) The picket line situation was quiet. Around noon
the number of pickets was about 25, and about 75% of
these colored. No violence has taken place since the
trouble on the first day of the strike.
WCS/jd
cc: Mr. Bolen
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 74
2 2 0
Birmingham, Alabama
June 4, 1947
C.I.O.
MEMORANDUM:
(1) At the request of Conciliator Pierce, Messrs. Farr,
Pierce, Sleeman, Bolen, and Poarch, and in part of the
meeting Mr. Reemer was present, sat in Mr. Sleeman’s
office, as Mr. Pierce stated—to attempt to settle the
strike or at least talk things over. The meeting was
called at 10:30 A.M. and it lasted until 12:45 P.M.
(2) The Company stated its stand by saying that on pre
vious meetings before the 15%^ was offered to the com
mittee and Mr. Gage, it was with the understanding
that they would accept and sign the contract but after
the offer was made then several of the colored objected to
it, stating that they wanted certain inequities corrected.
In all meetings as well as the one held this morning it
boiled down that these inequities did not mean one or
two occupations but the majority of the colored occupa
tions except for the day laborers. * * *
* * * *
WCS/jd
ce: Mr. Bolen
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 75
2 2 1
Bessemer, Alabama
April 27th, 1948
INSURANCE
* * * *
4. On Tuesday afternoon Messrs. Pierson, Bolen and my
self met with the C.I.O. committee and introduced Mr.
Pierson as a Prudential Insurance man who makes peri
odical visits to the plant to survey our insurance condi
tions, etc., etc. and took that method. We asked the
committee members to express their opinions about our
present insurance plan. The very first objection, and
strongly so, was that our hospital and surgical plan was
inadequate to meet their requirements and the whites
expressed they would be willing to pay more money for
an improvement in the plan. The colored, however, were
a little reluctant about a change in the premium but
they finally stated they felt if a better plan could be
offered for the surgical and hospitalization they probably
would at least get 95% of those now participating to go
to the extent of a $1.00 each. There was somewhat of a
feeling among the colored that they would take this im
provement even to the extent of having the Life Insur
ance and Accidental Death somewhat reduced. They also
expressed the opinion that the tie in of burial insurance
might be beneficial and help sell the idea of increase
and change to meet their suggested bettered hospital plan.
* * * *
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 76
W. C. S l e e m a n
222
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 81
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t Co r r e sp o n d e n c e
Bessemer, Alabama
August 10,1950
SUBJECT: CI.O.— Contract Negotiations
Please Refer To File
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 10,
1950 IN OFFICE OF FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCILIATION SERVICE IN BIRMINGHAM AT
10:00 A.M.
Present for
Company: Present for Union:
W. C. Sleeman
D. L. Golden
J. E. Bolen
F. W. Green
A. F. Smith
R. E. Farr, District Director
Van D. Jones, Field Representative
Shewmake
J. M. Herring )
W. P. Vance )
John Hubbard ) Negotiating
Joe Brooks (c) ) Committee
Gus Dickerson (c) )
Perry Thompson (c) )
V. C. Finch, Federal Conciliator, presided over the
meeting.
Mr. Sleeman than discussed the question of holding
seniority in two departments, after Vance had stated
that he knew he had less seniority than Quick on the
Shipping Track but that he also had seniority in the
Paint Department and that he could be retained on that
account.
* * * *
A. F. Smith
223
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Bessemer, Alabama
March 28, 1951
C. I. 0.
MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
* * * *
On the wage inequity program, believe Mr. Jones was
somewhat surprised when we explained to him actually
how our wage structure works and how some of the
rates had been bounced around by the War Labor Board’s
decisions, which were not only unsatisfactory to the Com
pany but not satisfactory to the men and as a result
further changes were made. Mr. Jones was not aware of
this and he wanted more time to study their files. We
are inclined to think that the committee as a whole, with
the exception of the colored, are not so interested in the
wage inequity program as much as they are in a good
substantial increase in money. They were told within the
next several weeks we have a long run of cars and the
money was there, all they needed to do is go in and get
the cars and they could get the money.
* * * * *
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 82
W. C. S l e e m a n
224
PLAINTIFF'S’ EXHIBIT 84
C.I.O.
MEMORANDUM:
Bessemer, Alabama
July 11, 1951
Saturday-—July 7, 1951—
* * * *
Around noon Saturday one white picket and one colored
were at the railroad gate, and a train crew when at
tempting to place cars in the yard they would not run
over the no strike sign which was placed between the
middle of the rails immediately outside of the plant
gates, and the white picket stood on the track. * * *
* * *
Wednesday— July 11,1951—
Railroad attempted to put cars in this A.M. and Gus
Dickerson, who had been talking to a number of the
pickets, which was approximately 5— one white and 4
colored, and who had also been served papers on the
strike, apparently left word with those picketing to stay
on the job, and he left immediately prior to the attempt
to push cars in. * * *
W. C. Sl e e m a n
225
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t Co r r e sp o n d e n c e
Bessemer, Alabama
July 11, 1951
SUBJECT: C.I.O.
Please Refer To File
MEMORANDUM
This morning at 11:25, Messrs. Guyton, Cassaday,
Horton, Ellithorpe and Bolen went to the south railroad
gates, unlocked and opened same, at which time there
were two white pickets and three colored pickets im
mediately outside of the gates. Upon our arrival, one of
the white boys walked toward an automobile located in the
vicinity of the Birmingham Southern office and when he
had gotten about half way between the railroad gate and
the automobile he called out, “ Are we going to eat?” . This
automobile was a Chevrolet, two-tone (green and black)
convertible which left immediately thereafter and within
a very short time, several carloads of pickets, both
colored and white, arrived on the scene.
At this time, there was located in the center of each
incoming track, CIO posters made up of a cardboard
approximately 2! square, tacked up to a stick which was
driven down between the rails.
* * * *
When the pickets returned to their stand just outside
the railroad gates, they proceeded to remove and throw
on the ground, the notes which the deputy and attorneys
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 85
226
had posted and re-established the picket signs in the cen
ter of the railroad trains. At this time there were ap
proximately fifteen white and twenty-five or thirty colored
pickets at the railroad gates.
J. E. B o l e n
227
Bessemer, Alabama
July 13, 1951
C.I.O.
MEMORANDUM:
Thursday— July 12, 1951—
Was at the plant Thursday afternoon. Found that
there was probably 15 to 20 men under the tent at the
picket line. There was no car stopping but now strike
signs had been placed in the middle of the road, and
new signs at the railroad gates. 4 or 5 colored pickets
were at the railroad gates.
* * *• #
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 86
Friday— July 13, 1951—
Was at the plant. The usual 15 or 20 pickets were in
the tent but none on the road. There were 3 colored at
the railroad gate. Strike signs were still in the middle
of the road and at the railroad gates * * *
* * * *
2 2 8
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 93
C.I.O.— Contract Negotiations Bessemer, Alabama
September 12, 1952
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN MANAGER
OF WORKS’ OFFICE AT 2:00 P.M. FRIDAY, SEP
TEMBER 12, 1952:
Present for Company:
W. C. Sleeman
J. E. Bolen
A. F. Smith
Present for Union:
Van D. Jones
J. M. Herring
C. G. Quick
Perry Thompson
Gus Dickerson
3. It was further agreed that the Company was to pre
pare a new seniority list, one headed “ Steel Stores” ,
which would take in the group of men working under
Joe Decatur and the other headed “Steel Miscellaneous” ,
taking in the men under the direct supervision of Mr.
Studdard. These two lists will replace the present “ Steel
Stores” seniority list.
* * * *
229
C.I.O. Bessemer, Alabama
September 13, 1952
MEMORANDUM:
In connection with the signing of the Agreement on Fri
day, September 12th, so as not to overlook any procedures
which we are required to follow in addition to the gen
eral routine of taking care of necessary things, the fol
lowing should also be taken care o f :
(1) Within the next day or two, since it was agreed
with the local committee yesterday, in the presence
of Mr. Van Jones, we are to prepare a new sen
iority list; one headed “ Steel Stores” , which would
take into that group those men who have been
working with Joe Decatur, cranemen, hookons,
laborers. On the outside crane, building # 3 aisle,
the crane runway on the west side of the building
and the unloading on the crane runway, on the
east side of building ,#3. A separate list is to be
prepared for the Steel Miscellaneous, which would
take in all the crane operators, hookons, etc. in the
steel shop, including the Punch & Shear, Press,
Steel Construction, Steel Erection and Welding
building. The balance of the departments, such as
the Wood Shop, Wood Erection, Forge Shop, etc.
will remain as is.
* * *
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 94
230
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 95
Inter-Department Correspondence
subject: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
Please Refer To File CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Bessemer, Alabama
August 25 & 26, 1954
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN MANAGER
OF WORKS’ OFFICE AT 1:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY,
AUGUST 25, 1954, AND AT 10:00 A.M. THURSDAY,
AUGUST 26, 1954:
Present for Company:
J. E. Bolen
D. L. Golden
A. F. Smith
J. R. Hudson
Present for Union:
Van D. Jones
J. M. Herring
Pete Vines
W. E. Lee, Jr.
Perry Thompson
Gus Dickerson
It was agreed that the related departments, in accordance
with Section 12— Seniority, would be the Truck Shop,
Steel Construction, Welding, Steel Erection, Air Brake,
Wood Erection, Paint and Shipping Track.
The matter of men holding seniority in two departments
was discussed and it was agreed that such men would
make their election as to what department they wanted
to remain in within the period of 30 days after depart
mental seniority list posted.
* * * *
A. F. Smith
2 8 1
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
DATED AUGUST 26, 1954
In accordance with the wording in Section 12— Sen
iority— of the 1954 contract which reads in part: “ Em
ployees on the track or related departments (such de
partments to be determined by agreement between the
Manager of Works and Local Union) already assigned
The related departments shall be:
Truck Shop
Steel Construction
Welding
Steel Erection
Air Brake
Wood Erection
Paint
Shipping Track
United Steelworkers of Pullman-Standard Car
A merica Manufacturing
Local No. 1466
/ s / Van D. Jones By: / s / J. E. Bolen
Manager of Works
/s / J. M. Herring
/ s / Gus Dickerson
/ s / Perry Thompson
/s / William P. Vance
/ s / W. H. Lee, Jr.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 96
232
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Inter-Department Correspondence
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 98
Bessemer, Alabama
September 18,1956
subject : United Steelworkers of America
Please Refer to File Contract Negotiations
Memorandum of meeting held in Manager of Works’
office at 2:00 P.M. Tuesday, September 18, 1956.
The local union committee and their international rep
resentative met with the company for the purposes of
carrying out the requirements of Section VI-B— Senior
ity, Section XI-0— Distribution of Overtime and Section
XIV-A.— Holidays, of the new agreement between the
parties.
The union was presented a supplemental agreement con
cerning local plant seniority. Such provisions contained
therein had previous been discussed by Mr. Boles, the
union representative and the local plant unions com
mittee during negotiations in Chicago. The supplemental
agreement was signed by the Manager of Works, all
members of the local plant union committee and their
international representative.
Present for Company:
J. D. Doles
A. F. Smith
J. R. Hudson
Present for Union:
Van D. Jones
I. M. Herring
Pete Vence
Earl Walls
Perry Thompson
Gus Dickerson
*
238
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 101
United Steelworkers of America
Production & Maintenance Employees
Local Union No. 1466
Bessemer, Alabama
August 26, 1959
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Memorandum of meeting held in Assistant Manager of
Works’ Office at 1:30 P.M. Wednesday, August 26, 1959.
10. MOBILE CRANE AND RAILROAD DEPART
MENTS— Union called for a combining of the above
two departments. Union claimed that the infrequent
use of the mobile crane operations was providing the
older men in that department very little employ
ment, and the combining of the two departments
would give them more job security.
Present for Company:
R. J. Gorski
J. E. Bolen
W. C. Horton
A. F. Smith
J. R. Hudson
Present for Union:
J. M. Herring
Pete Vance
Earl Walls
Perry Thompson
Gus Dickerson
Rupert Chisholm
234
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 102
PULLMAN-STANDARD CO.
SUBJECT United Steelworkers of America
Production & Maintenance Employees
Local Union No. 1466
Please Refer To File
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
LOCAL ISSUES
Bessemer, Alabama
January 19, 1960
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN SMITH’S
OFFICE AT 3:30 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19,
1960
The Union submitted the following local issues in antici
pation of reaching some satisfactory conclusion before
major contract negotiations resumed in Chicago.
2. Combining Mobile Crane Department with Mainte
nance Department— Mr. Bolen maintained that to
combine the two departments would be doing an in
justice to some of the older men in the maintenance
department. After considerable discussion, the Union
agreed with Bolen’s position.
Present for Company Present for Union:
J. E. Bolen
W. C. Horton
A. F. Smith
J. R. Hudson
J. M. Herring
Pete Vance
Earl Walls
Perry Thompson
Gus Dickerson
*
JRH/es
235
P&M
Monday
August 13, 1962
10:30 A.M.
UNION:
A. C. BURTTRAM
RALPH ETHRIDGE
EARL WALLS
JOHN PORTER
GUS DICKERSON
PERRY THOMPSON
LOCAL WORKING CONDITIONS— CONTRACT NE
GOTIATIONS:
* * * -X-
Additional proposals submitted by Union on attached list.
* * -X* *
Gus Dickerson— should apply plant wide, including the
erection tracks.
Talking about beginning of an order only.
Something should be included in agreement (Seniority) ;
thinks Co. should have listed in seniority agreement the
departments for seniority purposes.
Union interested and men asking for electricians, pipe
fitters, carpenters and whatever other craft jobs be
separated and sub-dept. seniority within the mechanical
department, in a sense, occupational seniority.
Dickerson— objects completely to No. 5, stating that in
the past the Union has legislated some employees out of
jobs by separating them into separate units.
* * * *
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 103
COMPANY:
J. E. BOLEN
W. C. HORTON
A. F. SMITH
J. R. HUDSON
236
PLAINTIFFS’ EX. 104
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
P&M UNIT
LOCAL NO. 1466
Wednesday
Sept. 12, 1962
1:30 P.M.
Company: Union:
Bolen
Horton
Smith
Hudson
Burttram
Walls
Ethridge
Porter
Dickerson
1. L a b o r P ool— Bolen: What is Union’s position?
Buttram— Lets go back to local working conditions as
agreed upon in last meeting.
A. # 1 Beginning of Order (Seniority)
Bolen— Will continue to do what we have done in the
past; boys know we do, when possible, give senior men
preference.
Ethridge— Don’t want iron clad rule; but want some
thing where senior man will be given preference pro
vided he can do the work.
Bolen— Won’t work in shop.
Ethridge— Not what my understanding was in Chicago.
Bolen— [Made] no commitment; try to [indecipherable]
(Burttram agreed.)
It just won’t work in this plant.
237
Burttram— Think it is bad when the same rule is not
applied throughout the plant; understand in some depts.
you do give preference to senior man.
Bolen—Would be changing jobs daily.
Ethridge— Would be a stipulation of over 100 cars be
fore rule would apply.
Going to have turmoil if you don’t give preference to
senior man.
Not giving all senior men preference down the line.
Ethridge stated Electricians couldn’t do job when he
went on vacation. Bolen used this against Ethridge.
Two Stipulations
1. Once man pick job, have no preference to other
jobs, stay on the job until completed.
2. Rule does not apply unless 100 cars or over.
Gus— Want rule to apply all over shop; if Welder picks
his, want rivet driver to pick his.
Bolen— Talking about all depts.
[Indecipherable] . . . not any more, if work for . . .
will have to work for Harry
Dickerson want all to have it or none.
Ethridge— Was sure misinformed; will get in black &
white next time.
Burttram— Would be the last one to want to take
away Mgt’s decision on directing the work force; the
Union might disagree sometime, when we take it up
through the griev. procedure.
Gus & Perry— Think Weld Helpers should be given pref
erence if Welders are allowed to pick their jobs.
Earl— Would you stress to your foremen to allow senior
man preference.
2 8 8
Bolen— Where practicable; when possible; but the final
decision is left up to Mgt.
Burttram— Still want you to do some work on this, we’re
not giving up. * * * *
Ethridge— Fork lift operators—have half in one dept,
and half in another dept. Think should all be on one
list. Should have a home base. They’re all under Mr.
Sullivan on yard. Talking about Steel Stores and
Misc. Stores Dept, when lift truck operators under
same supervision. Not talking about men in lumber
yard. * * *
Ethridge— Want the guards put back in Safety Dept.
Perry— Never been in Safety Dept. Will quit job before
go in Safety Dept. Not going in it.
* * * *
239
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 105
CO UNION
BOLEN WALLS P&M
HORTON ETHRIDGE CONTRACT
SMITH PORTER NEGOTIATIONS
HUDSON DICKERSON (LOCAL)
THOMPSON 1:30 P.M.
Ethridge—-How about Fork Lift Operators on one sen-
iority list.
Bolen— Up to you boys how you want to work it.
Gus— Think should talk to the men involved; get them
together & see what the majority want.
Bolen— Go ahead & make up your mind; get with Mr.
Smith and write it up. We’ll look it over when I get
back and decide whether or not it would be acceptable
from Mgt’s standpoint.
* * * *
240
PULLMAN-STANDARD
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t a l C o r r e sp o n d e n c e
s u b je c t UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466
PLEASE REFER TO FILE
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 106
BESSEMER, ALABAMA
Memorandum of meeting held in Hudson’s office at 9 :00
A.M. Thursday, May 27, 1965
SUBJECT: Contract Negotiation of The Local Working
Conditions Agreement Between Pullman-Standard, Besse
mer Plant, and United Steelworkers of America, Local
No. 1466.
PRESENT FOR PRESENT FOR UNION
COMPANY
J. R. Hudson
0. L. Johnson, Jr.
Luke Charles
F. A. Hasty
J. F. Hull
J. M. Herring
Earl Walls
John Porter
Guss Dickerson
Ross Hammonds
PORTER: “ I suggest you form a “ labor pool” of all
jobs from Job Class 1 through Job Class 6. Anybody
can do the jobs in the Job Class 1 through 6. Any
thing over Job Class 6 would be filled only by a quali
fied employee.”
241
DICKERSON: “ What you have now is satisfactory to
me.”
■3fr * * *
JOHNSON: . . . All Tool Room Employees should be on
a separate seniority list.
HERRING: “ We don’t want that. The department
would be too small. We did that with the Mobile
Cranes and it doesn’t work out.”
242
1965
DEPARTMENTS OF PULLMAN-STANDARD
HAMMOND, INDIANA PLANT
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 108
Whites Blacks
1. Die & Tool 76 2
2. Inspection 22 0
3. Janitors 2 1
4. Maintenance 37 2
5. Stores 10 0
6. Pattern & Template 1 0
7. Production Welding 51 3
8. Transportation 28 10
9. Automatic Welding 11 1
10. Tool Room 10 1
11. Poor Line 6 0
12. Fabricating 43 4
13. Crane Operator 15 3
14. Misc. Clerks & Timekeepers 3 0
15. Car Repair 75 18
16. Car Repair Welding 29 8
17. Wheel & Axle 3 3
243
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
OF THE BESSEMER PLANT
AS OF 1941
1. Superintendence Department
White Black
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 109
Janitor 0 2
Dispensary Aide 0 1
Laborer 0 1
Blue Print Operator 2 0
Tracer Clerk 1 0
Blue Print Boy 1 0
P.B.X. Oper & Stenographer 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0
Inspector 1 0
Sample Car Man 1 0
Stenographer 1 0
9 4
Total 13
Plant Protection Department
White Black
Policeman 5 0
Extra Policeman 6 0
Clerk 1 0
Punch Operator Policeman 1 0
13 ~ T
Total 13
Wood Mill Department
White Black
Hooker 0 1
Leader 2 0
Machine Operator 2 0
Helper 9 0
Gainer Operator 1 0
Helper & Craneman 1 0
Tool Room Man 1 0
U 1
Total 17
244
4. Lum ber Yard Departm ent
White Black
Inspector 1 0
Helper 24 0
Lumber Grader 1 0
Clerk 2 0
Machine Operator 1 0
29 T
Total 29
Wood Erection Department
White Black
Helper 21 24
Leader 1 0
Transfer Operator 1 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Car Builder 9 0
Material Man 1 0
Helper & Car Builder 6 0
Nailer 12 0
Car Builder & Leader 1 0
Helper & Nailer 2 0
Extra Policeman Helper 1 0
Crane Operator & Helper 1 0
Craneman 1 0
Gang Leader 1 0
Fitter 0 1
Helper & Craneman 1 0
61 25
Total 86
Paint Department
White Black
Painter 0 2
Stock House Man 0 1
Sprayer 0 22
Helper 10 9
Heater 0 1
Stenciller & Cutter 1 0
Stenciller 2 0
Leader 2 0
Car Cleaner 11 0
Stencil Cutter 1 0
Tool Room Man 1 0
Cleaner 1 0
29 35
Total 64
245
White Black
7. Shipping Track Departm ent
Helper 2 4
Bucker 0 1
Leader 1 0
Watchman & Air Tester 1 0
Air Brake Tester 1 0
Riveter 2 0
Car Builder 1 0
8 5
Total 13
Punch and Shear Department
White Black
Machine Operator 2 1
Shear Operator 0 4
Punch Operator 1 6
Helper 19 46
Laborer 0 2
Shearman 0 2
Fitter 0 2
Hooker & Helper 0 1
Leader 1 0
Spacer Operator 4 0
Burner 1 0
Pianola Operator 1 0
Checker 1 0
1st Helper Spacer 1 0
Crane Director 1 0
Night Leader 1 0
Heater 0 1
33 65~
Total 98
Press Department
White Black
Helper 0 33
Press Oper & Night Leader 1 0
Press Operator 5 0
Operator 2 0
Learner 1 0
Machine Operator 1 0
Press Oper Leader 1 0
11 33~
Total 44
246
10.
l i .
Steel Construction
White Black
Fitter 0 63
Bucker 0 7
Heater 0 10
Reamer 0 1
Heater & Bucker 0 1
Hooker 0 1
Helper 10 4
Leader 1 0
Gang Leader 1 0
Riveter 10 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Learner 1 0
Riveter & Helper 8 0
Craneman & Helper 1 0
Tacker 3 0
Leader & Riveter 1 0
38 87
Total 125
Steel Erection
White Black
Heater 0 33
Fitter 0 172
Bucker 0 34
Sticker 0 3
Helper 1 6
Bucker Learner 0 1
Laborer 0 2
Hooker 0 6
Leader 7 0
Riveter 39 0
Pipefitter Helper 8 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Pipefitter 8 0
Riveter Leader 2 0
Gang Leader 3 0
Helper Riveter 5 0
Learner 11 0
Riveter Inspector 1 0
Pipefitter Helper Riveter 1 0
Welder 1 0
Learner Riveter 1 0
Riveter Riveter C.W. 1 0
Tacker 1 0
92 257
Total 349
247
Welding Department
White Black
Welder 25 0
Welder Leader 1 0
Tacker 16 0
Burner 3 0
Tack Welder 4 0
Leader 1 0
50 0
Total 50
Wheel and Axle Department
White Black
Wheel Roller Laborer 0 3
Wheel Roller 0 3
Axle Finisher Helper 1 0
Hooker 0 1
Helper Wheel Roller 0 3
Helper 1 1
Leader 2 0
Wheel Fitter 1 0
Rougher 2 0
Rougher Helper 1 0
Finisher Helper 1 0
Burnisher 1 0
Tool Grinder 1 0
Axle Finisher 2 0
Wheel Press Oper. Learner 1 0
Wheel Checker Wheel Mounter 1 0
Helper Wheel Borer 1 0
Craneman 1 0
Wheel Checker 1 0
Wheel Borer 1 0
Wheel Mtr Wheel Fitter 1 0
20 11
Total 31
Truck Department
White Black
Truck Builder 0 11
Helper 0 3
~~0 14
Total 14
248
15. Forge Departm ent
Heater
Heater Blacksmith Helper
Hooker
Shearman
Helper
Black Smith Helper
Truck Builder
Bolt Threader Oper Helper
Blacksmith Machine Oper.
Machine Operator
Leader
Learner
Tool Temperer
Checker
Taper Roll Oper. Helper
Bull Dozier Oper.
Craneman
Helper Trimer Oper.
Machine Oper. Leader
Drill Press Oper. Bull Dozier
Blacksmith
Axle Finisher Helper
Blacksmith Machine Oper.
White Black
0 4
0 2
0 1
0 1
10 15
0 2
0 1
1 0
1 0
3 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
32 26
Total 58
249
Die & Tool Department
White Black
Hooker 1 1
Laborer 0 2
Die Man 1 0
Machinist 21 0
Apprentice 2 0
Planer Operator 1 0
Craneman 2 0
Die Man & Tool Room Helper 1 0
Welder 1 0
3 yr Apprentice 1 0
Planer Oper Die Man 1 0
Die Office Helper 1 0
Drill Press Operator 2 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Tool Room Helper 1 0
Drill Press Oper Die Man 1 0
Handy Man 3 0
Leader 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0
Welder Learner 1 0
Die Man 10 0
Helper 2 0
Tool Man 1 0
5ST 3
Total 61
250
Template Department
White Black
Template Maker 1 0
Apprentice 2 0
3 0
Total 3
Maintenance Department
White Black
Handy Man 1 1
Oiler 0 2
Oiler Laborer 0 1
Switchman Helper 0 1
Switchman 0 2
Laborer Switchman 0 2
Laborer 0 2
Hooker Switchman 0 1
Section Laborer 0 1
Power House Oper. 4 0
Electrician 16 0
Leader 3 0
Armatur Winder 2 0
Pipefitter 8 0
Millwright 10 0
Engineer 1 0
Locomotive Engineer 1 0
Rigger 2 0
Boiler Fireman 3 0
Boiler Oper. 1 0
Cable Splicer 1 0
Carpenter 1 0
Brickmason 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0
H i 13
Total 70
251
White Black
19. Steel Miscellaneous Departm ent
Craneman Hooker 0 7
Craneman 1 2
Rivet Man 0 1
Hooker 0 35
Crane Operator 0 1
Helper 0 7
14Laborer 0
Tractor Driver 0 2
Craneman Laborer 0 1
Fitter 0 3
Leader 1 0
Helper Crane Operator 1 0
Crane Director 2 0
Hooker Crane Oper. 1 0
Bucker 0 1
6 74
Total 80
Stores Department .
White Black
Truck Driver 0 1
Store House Man 1 0
Unloading Forman 1 0
Stenographer 1 0
0Helper 1
Clerk Store House Attendant 1 0
Clerk 1 0
T T
Total 7
RATE COMPARISONS— PULLMAN AND T. C. I & R. R.
PULLMAN T. C. I & R. R.
P U L L M A N S T A N D A R D C A R M A N U F A C T U R IN G C O M P A N Y
B E S S E M E R P L A N T February 24, 1942
OCCUPATION COL. HOURLY PIECEWORK HOURLY
Machinist W .725 to 1.01 none .925 to 1.07
Welders (Elect) W .65 Start .70 .865 .80 to .97
Electricians W .665 to .90 none: .92 to 1.07
Riveters W .65 Start .75 1.055 .81
Buck-Heat-Fit C .485 Start .51 .66 .595
Punch & Shear Op C .485 .625 .70 (White)
“ Helper C .485 .575 .58 to .60
Spacer Operator W .645 .955 .955
Spacer Helper w .585 .75 .775
Blacksmiths w .645 to .885 .865 .92 to 1.07
Blacksmith Help c .52 to' .56 .595 .60 - .65 - .70
Axle Rough & Fin. w .645 .955 .58 Guarantee
1.305 P.W. Base
Crane Operator w .63 to .66 none .695
Crane Operator c .525 .625 .61
Press Operator w .585 .865 none
Press Helper c .485 .595 none
Wood Car Build w .625 .865 .67 to .945 (Carp)
Painters c .485 .625 .67 to .89 (White)
Millwrights w .665 to .90 none .81-.91 & .97
Template Maker w .775 to .90 none 1.145 to 1.19 (Pattern
makers)
Laborers c .485 .55
PLA
IN
TIFFS’ E
XH
IB
IT 111
P U L L M A N S T A N D A R D C A R M A N U F A C T U R IN G C O M P A N Y
B E S S E M E R P L A N T February 24, 1942
RATE
OCCUPATION
COMPARISONS--PULLM AN AND NASHVILLE BRIDGE CO.
NASHVILLE BRIDGE
PULLMAN COMPANY
COL. HOURLY PIECEWORK HOURLY
Machinist W .725 to 1.01 none .98 to 1.08
Welders (Electric) w .65 Start .70 .865 .84 to 1.06
Electricians w .665 to .90 none 1.05
Riveters w .65 Start .75 1.055 .95 to 1.00
Buck-Heat-Fit C .485 Start .51 .66 .52 to .62
Punch & Shear Oper c .485 .625 .60 to .78 (White)
Punch & Shear Helper c .485 .575 .44 to .54
Spacer Operator w .645 .955 .88
Spacer Helper w .585 .75 .47 to .60
Blacksmiths w .645 to .885 .865 .96 to 1.05
Craneman w .63 to .66 .75
Wood Car Builders w .625 .865 .56 to .86 (Carp)
Painters c .485 .625 .53 to .65
Millwrights w .665 to .90 none .96
Labor c .485 .40 White .39 Col.
253
254
COMPANY EX 8—FIRST DOCUMENT
U. S. W. A. (CIO)
BESSEMER— Feb. 16, 1943
Meeting with Bargaining Committee:
A meeting was held with United Steel Workers of
America at 10:00 A. M. this date present were:
For the U. S. W. A.
V. F. Gage, District Representative
Robert F. Aldridge (w) Punch & Shear Dept.
McKinley McCreary (e) Track
Perry L. Thompson (e) Punch & Shear Dept.
Frank Zeigler (c) Bomb Dept.
For the Company:
W. C. Sleeman
0. A. Wiltsie
* * * *
Mr. Aldridge asked if he could bring up a question as
to the rate classification, and a general discussion fol
lowed as to various types of work being done in Punch
& Shear Department. The colored members also entered
into the discussion.
* * * *
255
COMPANY EX. 8—SECOND DOCUMENT
Report o f men who reported for work and worked January 10, 1944
Report o f men who failed to report for work on January 10, 1944
Report of men who reported and struck January 10, 1944
Departments
Represented
by C.I.O. I.A.M. I.B.E.W. TOTAL
Reported for work and worked—
white 257 118 14 389
colored 176 2 0 178
Total 433 120 14 567
Did not report for work—
white 37 16 2 55
colored 212 2 0 214
Total 249 18 2 269
Reported for work and struck—
white 0 0 0 0
colored 61 0 0 61
Total 61 0 0 61
Pullman-Standard Car Mfgr. Co.,
Bessemer, Alabama Plant
January 11,1944
256
COMPANY EX. 8—THIRD DOCUMENT
Bessemer, Alabama
May 16, 1947
SUBJECT: CIO Contract Negotiations.
Memorandum of meeting held in the Manager of Works
office, Bessemer Plant at 1:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 13,
1947.
Present for Company: Present for Union:
D. L. Golden
W. C. Sleeman
J. E. Bolen
A. F. Smith
B. F. Gage, Field Representative
J. M. Herring,
Shop Committeeman
John Hubbard,
Shop Committeeman
Roy Blankenship,
Shop Committeeman
Perry Thompson (c),
Shop Committeeman
Gus Dickerson (c) ,
Shop Committeeman
* * * *
The question of seniority was then discussed at length,
the Union wanting seniority for promotions. Mr. Golden
explained that such would not work at this plant and
would not agree to the request. Dickerson favored oc
cupational seniority and to this Mr. Golden stated that
the Company would not object. * * *
* * * *
257
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Inter-Department Correspondence
subject: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
SENIORITY
Please Refer To File
Bessemer, Alabama
September 9,1954
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN SAFETY
CONFERENCE ROOM AT 2:30 P.M. THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 9, 1954.
Present for Company: Present for Union:
W. C. Horton J. M. Herring
A. F. Smith Gus Dickerson
J. R. Hudson Pete Vance ,
L. G. Hintermeier (9 inspectors)
Leon Caldwell
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the seniority-
provision under the new 1954 agreement and to what
effect it would have on the inspectors in the Inspection
Department.
Herring stated that the only way he could interpret the
contract was the man with the age stayed, provided he
had the ability to perform the work.
Horton stated that considering A, B and C factors, the
oldest man would have preference
Herring maintained that the company had to give the
man a trial at the job, if he said he had the ability to do
the work. He further stated that he understood the
company was not running a school and the union would
COMPANY EX. 9—FIRST DOCUMENT
258
agree, and he thought one day would be sufficient to find
out whether a man had the ability to perform the work.
Horton asserted that when a man refused to take a job
on the basis of not having the ability to perform the
work, he would not have to be considered again for
the job.
Dickerson agreed.
Meeting adjourned at 3 :30 P.M.
A. F. Smith
JRH/es
cc: Messrs. W. C. Sleeman
J. E. Bolen
259
COMPANY EX. 9—SECOND DOCUMENT
(UNION PROPOSAL OF 8/13/62)
1. At the beginning of a Job, Track or line senior men
within that department in respect to his job classifi
cation shall be given preference wherever possible as
to job.
2. Wherever possible senior men shall be given prefer
ence as to shift.
3. Rates are to be studied on all new equipment, jobs
and new manufacturing methods or general produc
tion conditions.
4. Drink Boxes, Coffee, milk and sandwich machines be
placed throughout the plant.
5. All trade or craft jobs be placed on separate seniority
list.
6. Copies of the local working conditions be placed in the
up coming contract, (as attached sheet)
Submitted by Union 8-13-62
(CO. PROPOSAL OF 1/19/62)
• * * * ■ *
SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in
crease or decrease of forces— the following factors shall
be considered and where factors “b” , “ c” and “ d” are
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall gov
ern:
a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.
In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica
tions in the department in which he is then working as
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same
department, and other departments, and the advisability
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability
and efficiency.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the em
ployee does not return to work within ten (10) days
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com
pany employment records; (d) lay-off of one or more
years duration.
New employees are on probation for six months, dur
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as
exclusively determined by the Company.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department. However, the Company reserves the right
under reduced operations or shut-down, to retain such
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs. Under
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen or force
retained.
260
COMPANY EX. 10—FIRST DOCUMENT
* * * *
261
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
AF of L Machinists # 5
Bessemer, Alabama,
January 22, 1942
A meeting was held with the bargaining committee of
the A. F. of L. Machinists, beginning at 9:10 A.M.
Those representing the Association were:
J. H. Howard
J. D. Baumgardner
A. H. Raines
0. L. Johnson
L. H. Clymore
Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman
F. W. Green
J. E. Bolen
0. A. Wiltsie
Mr. Sleeman handed to committee three sheets of the
proposed contract in which certain changes had been made
in some of the sections in line with the discussion at
previous meeting.
Seniority A good bit of time was spent in discussing
this section, the committee taking the position that the
company’s provision for use of employees when running
small lots of cars or shut-down nullified the seniority.
Mr. Sleeman explained in detail the purpose of such a
provision and asked the committee to submit a counter
proposal if they could work out something to cover such
condition. The committee contends that they want straight
departmental seniority.
* * * *
COMPANY EX. 10—SECOND DOCUMENT
Memorandum of Conference
AF of L Machinists— # 6 Bessemer, Alabama,
January 30,1941
A conference was held with the bargaining committee
of the AF of L Machinists at the general office this date,
beginning at 2:15 P.M.
Mr. W. C. Finch, of the U.S. Conciliation Service was
present.
Those representing the Union were:
J. H. Howard
J. D. Baumgardner
A. H. Raines
0. L. Johnson
Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman
F. W. Green
J. E. Bolen
C. A. Wiltsie
The meeting opened with Mr. Howard stating that the
committee had asked Mr. Finch of the Conciliation Serv
ice to come to the conference due to the fact that at last
conference certain items of proposed contract could not
be agreed upon between company and the Association.
A discussion took place concerning the following on
which agreement had not been reached:
Seniority— The committee contends that the last clause
of this section as offered in company counter-proposal
nullifies seniority. Mr. Sleeman explained the purpose of
the clause and stated that the company wanted the right
under shut-down and running small lots to apply this pro
vision. Noted by conciliator as not agreed on.
* * * *
262
COMPANY EX. 10—THIRD DOCUMENT
263
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
No. 1-
COMPANY EX. 12—FIRST DOCUMENT
Bessemer, Alabama,
November 26th, 1941
A conference was held in the General Office on No
vember 26th, at 4:40 P.M. with the representatives of
the CIO Bargaining Committee.
Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford
W. M. Sheffield
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored
Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman
F. W. Green
J. E. Bolen
0. A. Wiltsie
The Committee presented a contract, stating that it
was a copy of the contract which had previously been
submitted to Bessemer Plant. * * *
* * * *
SECTION 6— SENIORITY It is understood and agreed
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall
be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:
(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness
264
In increasing and decreasing the forces employees shall
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they
entered the services of the company, that is, the youngest
employee shall be laid off first, continuing on down the
line. If and when business picks up they shall be re
employed in the order in which they were laid off, that
is, the oldest man in point of service with the company
shall be reemployed first, continuing on through the list
until the first man laid off would be the last man re
turned to work. There shall be no employment of new
men until all previous employees laid off have been given
an opportunity of returning to work.
* * * *
265
Bessemer, Alabama
December 9, 1941
SWOC CONTRACT
MR. W. N. BARKER:
# * * *
Under the heading of Seniority they have asked the
insertion of a portion of the last paragraph Section 6
reading, “ No employee shall hold seniority in more than
one department.” We have inserted for counter proposal
to them the balance of this paragraph which reads,
“ However, company reserves the right under reduced
operations or shut-downs to retain such employees as
will best fit company needs.” Incidentally, this latter
part of the paragraph, we think, is also covered by the
second paragraph of this Section 6.
* * * #
W. C. Sl e e m a n
COMPANY EX. 12—SECOND DOCUMENT
266
STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Third Floor Steiner Building-
Telephone 3-3937
Birmingham, Alabama
Noel R. Beddow,
Executive Director
William Mitch,
Regional Director
January 7, 1942
Mr. W. C. Sleeman, General Manager
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.
Bessemer, Alabama
Dear Sir:
Enclosed you will find copy of the counter proposal
that Mr. Beddow promised you at our last meeting.
We would like to request a meeting for Saturday,
January 10, at 9:00 A. M. for the purpose of considering
the various proposals. I feel that we can make this a
final meeting in view of the discussions that have taken
place.
Very truly yours,
/ s / W. H. Crawford
W. H. Cr a w f o r d
Representative
WHC/ww * * * *
COMPANY EX. 12—THIRD DOCUMENT
SECTION 6— SENIORITY— It is understood and agreed
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall
be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:
267
(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness
In increasing and decreasing the forces, employees shall
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they
entered the serv e company, that is, the youngest
employee shall be laid off f tinning on down
the line. If and when business picks up they shall be
reemployed in the order in which they were laid off, that
is, the oldest in point of service with the company shall
be reemployed first, continuing on through the list until
the first man laid off would be the last man returned
to work. There shall be no employment of new men
until all previous employees laid off have been given an
opportunity of returning to work.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one de
partment. Any employee who shall leave the employ of
the Company at any time during the existence of the
Agreement, or any extension thereof, because of being
called or, or volunteering for, the United States Military
or Naval Service in time of emergency shall, upon his
return from such service, be restored to his former posi
tion or a position of like seniority and pay, unless the
position of the Company has so changed as to make this
impossible, on the basis of his seniority without any loss
of accumulated seniority right.
* * * *
268
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
No. 2
Bessemer, Alabama
November 29th, 1941
A conference was held in the General Office on Novem
ber 29th, at 9:15 A. M. with the representatives of the
CIO Bargaining Committee.
Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford
W. M. Sheffield
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored
Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman
F. W. Green
J. E. Bolen
0. A. Wiltsie
Counter proposals were submitted to the Committee
covering each of the sections in the contract they had
presented. These proposals and changes were discussed
in detail. Mr. Crawford asked that the wage question
be passed over at this meeting, and he also stated that
the Committee wished to withdraw section 13 of their
proposed contract, pertaining to closed shop. They will
submit a new proposal containing the Union Maintenance
Clause.
Mr. Sleeman gave Mr. Crawford typewritten copies of
the counter proposals offered by the company, and for
the Vacation Clause he handed Mr. Crawford a copy of
COMPANY EX. 12—FOURTH DOCUMENT
269
the Company’s Pamphlet “Vacation Plan for Hourly and
Piecework Employees” , dated July 14, 1941.
Next meeting is to be at General Office on Saturday
morning December 6th, at 9 :00 o’clock.
Adjournment— 12:15 P. M.
* * * *
SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in
crease or decrease of forces—the following factors shall
be considered and where factors “b” , “c” , “d” and “e” ,
are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall
govern:
a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness;
e. Family status; number of dependents.
In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica
tions in the department in which he is then working as
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same
departments, and other department and the advisability
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability
and efficiency.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off and the
employee does not return to work within ten (10) days
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com
pany employment records.
New employees are on probation for six months, dur
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as
exclusively determined by the Management.
* * * *
270
MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
S. W. 0. C. #6 .
Bessemer, Alabama
January 10, 1942.
A meeting was held with the S. W. 0. C. bargaining
Committee at the General Office January 10, 1942 at
9:15 A. M. (Saturday)
Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford
W. R. Sheffield
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored
Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman
F. W. Green
J. E. Bolen
0. A. Wiltsie
When the conference opened Mr. Sleeman explained
that he had a Court Reporter present to take down the
preliminary statement of the meeting, after which the
reporter would retire. Mr. Sleeman stated that the pro
posed contract received from the Union on January 8th
which was submitted as a counter-proposal to what had
been offered by the Company is practically a duplicate
of the proposal originally submitted by the Union. He
further stated that he did not understand this being sub
mitted as counter-proposal when it ignored all of the
points and sections upon which an agreement had been
reached during the five conferences held for purpose of
negotiating a contract. Mr. Sleeman further stated the
Company had kept all appointments, had arranged for
COMPANY EX. 12—FIFTH DOCUMENT
271
proper and complete attendance of company representa
tives at all meetings. However, he stated the Union had
postponed a meeting and for another appointed meeting
the Committee had failed to show up and waited two
days to telephone reason for not keeping the appointment.
Mr. Crawford stated he took the responsibility for these
failures. Mr. Sleeman asked Mr. Crawford if he had
anything to say to be incorporated in the statement—
Mr. Crawford replied that he had no remarks to make.
The reporter then retired from the meeting.
Mr. Sleeman then stated that he was unable to under
stand the submitting as a counter-proposal what amounted
to a duplicate of the proposal which the Union had origi
nally submitted and over which first meeting was held
on November 26, and failure of the Union to take into
account the items that had been tentatively agreed on
at various meetings. Mr. Crawford stated that the pro
posal contained many of the items agreed upon, and Mr.
Sleeman replied that agreement had been reached on
practically half the provisions of the tentative proposal,
However, he stated that he would again go over the
details of the Union proposed contract by sections, and
made the following comment:
* * * *
Section 6—Seniority
Mr. Sleeman asked the committee to consider the
seniority section as offered by the company for the reason
that it is more applicable to this plant. Also the Union’s
military clause was discussed, and Mr. Sleeman stated
he was of the opinion this company would line up with
other corporations in giving consideration to reemploying
men who had served in military forces.
* * * *
272
SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in
crease or decrease of forces— the following factors shall
be considered and where factors “b” , “ c” and “ d” are
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall govern:
a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.
In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica
tions in the department in which he is then working as
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same
department, and other departments, and the advisability
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability
and efficiency.
Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the employee
does not return to work within ten (10) days after notice
is sent to the address according to the Company employ
ment records.
New employees are on probation for six months, dur
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as
exclusively determined by the Company.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department. However, the Company reserves the right
under reduced operations or shut-down, to retain such
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs. Under
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the kind
of work performed by leaders, foremen or force retained.
* * * *
SECTION 6— SENIORITY It is understood and agreed
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall
273
be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:
(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness
In increasing and decreasing the forces, employees shall
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they
entered the service of the company, that is, the youngest
employee shall be laid off first, continuing on down the
line. If and when business picks up they shall be re-
employed in the order in which they were laid off, that
is, the oldest in point of service with the company shall
be reemployed first, continuing on through the list until
the first man laid off would be the last man returned to
work. There shall be no employment of new men until
all previous employees laid off have been given an op
portunity of returning to work.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one
department. Any employee who shall leave the employ
of the Company at any time during the existence of this
agreement, or any extension thereof, because of being
called or, volunteering for, the United States Military or
Naval Service in time of emergency shall, upon his re
turn from such service, be restored to his former position
or a position of like seniority and pay, unless the position
of the Company has so changed as to make this im
possible, on the basis of his seniority without any loss
of accumulated seniority right.
* * * *
274
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e sp o n d e n c e
S u b j e c t : C.I.O.— CONTRACTS
P l e a s e R e f e r to F il e
Bessemer, Alabama
April 4,1952
MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
No doubt Smith’s department is making a comprehen
sive study in setting out comparative information be
tween our different existing contracts and in this con
nection we observed in a recent “ Mill and Factory”
magazine, a very good article entitled “ What Your
Union Contract Should Cover” . There is also included
in this article, a contract bargaining check list. We
started to analyze Bessemer’s particular contract apply
ing this check list but we take it from the trend of things
that this year’s contract will not be handled locally in
the same manner as previously done.
• * * • * - *
We suggest that seniority be kept as we have it in
Bessemer; that is, occupational seniority by departments
(this being requested by the Union some few years ago).
* * * *
COMPANY EX. 13—FIRST DOCUMENT
275
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e s p o n d e n c e
S u b j e c t : Seniority— U.S. Steel, Republic Steel,
Inland Steel, Youngstown Steel
P l e a s e R e f e r to F il e
July 22,1952
MR. ROBERT C. SMITH:
I have checked with the above companies regarding the
operation of their seniority clauses and have been in
formed as follows.
U. S. STEEL— The master contract sets forth the basis
for accumulating seniority and also the reasons under
which seniority is broken. Each plant negotiates its own
seniority agreement covering promotions, demotions, in
creases and decreases in forces. At South Works for
example, they have seniority units which comprise sev
eral occupations and within a department they may have
as many as five or six units. They do not have plant
wide seniority. They do have, however, a setup whereby
men being laid off with three years’ or more service are
placed on the labor seniority list according to their plant
wide seniority and such employees may displace Laborers
throughout the plant having less plant-wide seniority.
REPUBLIC STEEL— Republic is very much like U. S.
Steel except that they do have a labor pool into which
laid off men are placed so that when men are needed in
departments other than from which they are laid off, the
men with the longest plant seniority are placed on tempo
rary jobs or used to fill in for absentees in the various
departments.
COMPANY EX. 13—SECOND DOCUMENT
276
INLAND STEEL— Inland has more or less the same
setup as U. S. Steel in that they have seniority units
which might comprise as many as six departments and
it is possible that each unit might have as many as ten
or twelve occupations therein. They do not have plant
wide seniority and only when there is a general depres
sion in the steel industry does departmental seniority
apply. In the skill trades, however, they do have occu
pational seniority within the department.
YOUNGSTOWN STEEL— At Youngstown, as in the
above three companies, each plant of the company has its
own seniority setup, and at the South Chicago plant it is
operated on a departmental basis. In reduction of forces,
however, the occupation affected is the first to be reduced
and then if the employee has more departmental senior
ity than others in a lower rated occupation, then such
affected employees exercise departmental seniority. In
this plant, they do have a labor pool which operates the
same as at Republic.
At all of the above mentioned plants, ability and physi
cal fitness are the governing factors, and only where
such factors are relatively equal does length of continu
ous service govern.
D. L. Golden
277
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e s p o n d e n c e
COMPANY EX. 13—THIRD DOCUMENT
S u b j e c t :
P l e a s e R e f e r to F il e
August 14,1952
MR. ROBERT C. SMITH:
Attached are separate memoranda covering my review
of the labor agreements at Butler, the two Hammond
Plants and Worcester as per your memorandum of Au
gust 11.
,/s/ RJG
R . J . G o r s k i
RJG:cs
Attachments
278
BUTLER PLANT
There have been a large number of grievances at this
plant under the current agreement. We have gone to
arbitration in 24 cases, and we are currently preparing
to go to arbitration in another three cases. Most of the
grievances involved questions of ability under the senior
ity provisions, disciplinary action, overtime assignment,
vacations, and tasks.
A review of this agreement in the light of experience
with respect to these grievances as well as the remaining
provisions of the agreement which might cause conflict
in the future, indicates the following desirable changes:
1. Seniority— The Union at this plant has continually
challenged Management’s application of the ability quali
fication under this provision. The main source of diffi
culty in this respect centers in the Electrical Department
and in the Punch, Shear and Press Departments. The
Electrical Department seniority list has for a long num
ber of years included Cranemen. This serves as a basis
for dispute whenever an electrician vacancy occurs and
Management fill such vacancy by hiring a qualified elec
trician. The Union insists, not only because of the sen
iority list, but because of past practice, that senior
Cranemen should be given preference in filling Electri
cian vacancies. The exclusion of Cranemen from the
Electrical Department seniority list has been attempted
without success on several occasions in the past. It should
be attempted again.
As to the Punch, Shear and Press Department, the
Union has sought to apply a provision in the seniority
clause which gives preference to senior employees at the
start of a job, track, or line whenever a senior employee
completes an item of work in any of these departments.
Because many items worked on in these departments are
completed in a relatively short period of time, any ar
279
rangement that would permit employees to exercise their
seniority to place themselves on different machines after
completing each item could lead to disruptions in the flow
of work which would in turn affect production through
out the shop. This undesirable provision is contained in
paragraph 7 of the seniority clause. Every effort should
be made to eliminate it, or to clarify it in order to avoid
conflict in those areas where its application is completely
impossible.
Overtime, Saturday and Sunday work are distributed
under various types of seniority arrangements in the
different departments. Some departments use seniority
alone as a basis for distributing such work, some rotate,
while others provide that if an employee’s job works he
works, with all other overtime being distributed accord
ing to seniority or rotation. A number of grievances
have originated due to the fact that these overtime dis
tribution arrangements have not been complied with, or
have been complied with, but have not been carried out
solely because of employee failure to report as scheduled.
For example, the Union insists that when a group of
employees have been scheduled for overtime work accord
ing to their applicable overtime distribution agreement,
Management is obligated to follow seniority in rearrang
ing the work force or filling in vacancies if employees
properly scheduled for such work fail to report for the
overtime assignment. We should have a detailed under
standing to cover the various ramifications of overtime
assignments which are not now set forth in writing and
subject to perpetual dispute.
Our people at Butler have suggested certain other
changes in the seniority provision, but a number of these
suggestions, I believe, stem from administration difficul
ties rather than principle or operating difficulties. These
administration difficulties, I believe, could be ironed out
satisfactorily without attempting to eliminate basic pro
2 8 0
visions which are not, in my opinion, the source of dif
ficulty in these particular areas.
2. Disciplinary Action— The Union’s objection to dis
ciplinary action stems from its contention that there is
no set of rules to guide an employee in his conduct so
that he might avoid penalty. A demerit slip system
which has been in use for a number of years is not rec
ognized by the Union for the reason that there is no
cut-off or terminal point; that is, an employee who is
warned against a further violation of some rule via a
demerit slip is subject to layoff or discharge in the event
of a subsequent violation even though it might occur a
year or more after the first offense. In the case of de
merits for absenteeism, for example, the Union points
to innumerable cases where demerits have not been is
sued in the case of key employees. The Union contends
that this is discrimination and that before it will recog
nize the merit system there will have to be a specific
agreement regarding the issuance of demerits and all
penalties for violation of agreed upon rules will have to
be administered uniformily.
3. Vacations— The vacation provision under this agree
ment incorrectly bases eligibility for two weeks vacations
on the “ receipt of earnings” in 60 per cent of the pay
periods, etc. This language should be made consistent
with the language which applies to employees qualifying
for one week and three week vacations where the eligi
bility is based on the performance of work in 60 per
cent of the pay periods.
Our Butler people have expressed dissatisfaction with
the present provision concerning the calculation of vaca
tion pay. Vacation pay under the present contract is
calculated on the basis of the employee’s average straight
time hourly earnings during the two closed and calcu
lated pay periods immediately preceding the employee’s
vacation. This basis presents a problem whenever it is
2 8 1
necessary to deny an employee’s request for a particular
vacation period because of the possibility of a variation
in earnings. Employees are reluctant to take a vacation
when their earnings are low, which is the time when we
can usually spare them more readily then when their
earnings are high, which is the time when employees
would like to take their vacation. In order to avoid this
problem, our Butler people have suggested that vacation
pay be based on the employee’s average hourly earnings
during the 12 months preceding the employee’s vacation
or during the preceding calendar year with provision for
adjusting such average rate in the light of any inter
vening increases. At Michigan City, we use the per
centages of the preceding year’s earnings, but we do not
adjust such amounts in the light of intervening wage
increases.
4. Task— The present task clause in this agreement
has thus far served well to protect us in the disputes
which have arisen relating to task. For this reason, it
seems quite likely that the Union will make a strong
effort to either revise or eliminate it.
5. Military Clause— This clause should be revised to
conform with the present Selective Service Act. It now
refers to the act of 1940.
HAMMOND CAR PLANT
We have had relatively few grievances at this plant.
The grievances which did arise did not originate out of
any ambiguity under the contract. As a matter of fact
in all of the cases I have had occasion to handle, the
contract served us well in maintaining our position.
Regarding provisions in the agreement that might be
modified, changed, amended or eliminated entirely to our
advantage, the following is submitted for consideration:
2 8 2
1. Recognition— The current bargaining unit by its
inclusion of “ factory clerks” covers timekeepers. Several
months ago John Russell raised a question as to whether
it would be possible to have timekeepers eliminated from
the bargaining unit because it is planned to have them
placed on a salary basis and otherwise change their
duties, making it undesirable to have them included in
the bargaining unit, A job description for use as a basis
in determining whether we could present a sound case in
an effort to have this classification removed from the
unit was requested of Russell by Mr. Shane. To my
knowledge, this job description has not been submitted
as yet. This matter should be taken up and resolved
among ourselves before a new contract is negotiated so
that if there is any good basis for excluding this classi
fication, it can be done at the proper time.
2. Wages— Paragraph 3 provides that where a pro
duction item is to be made on a production day-rate
basis, the hourly day rate is to be established by using
the day rate of the occupation and adding to it 60 per
cent of the difference between the day rate and the piece
work expectancy rate. A number of months ago Messrs.
Trautman and Wulff implied that this provision was un
desirable from Management’s viewpoint. We should have
the facts as to why this provision is undesirable to our
plant people and their recommendation concerning a
change in this provision or an elimination thereof.
3. Vacations— The vacation provision in this contract,
as is the case at the Wheel Foundry, Butler and Wor
cester, contains reference to the “ receipt of earnings”
with respect to employees who have seniority of five
years. This should be corrected to conform with the re
quirement that an employee must work in at least 60
per cent of the pay periods as provided with reference
to one year and twenty-five year employees.
283
4. Grievances— Step E of the grievance procedure
which provides for referring unsettled grievances to arbi
tration should contain a time limitation. Under the pres
ent language, the Union is not required to request re
ferral of an unsettled grievance to arbitration within a
specified period of time. In our Butler contract, for ex
ample, the Union must notify the Company within five
days after the discussion of the grievance in the final
step between the parties as to whether it desires to pro
ceed to arbitration.
5. Military Clause— The current military clause refers
to the Selective Service Act of 1940 and also provides for
leaves of absence to employees entering the U. S. Mari
time service. This provision, of course, should be revised
to conform with the current Selective Service Act.
6. Termination— This clause now contains a provision
similar to the General Motors catch-all provision to pro
tect us against having to negotiate at the pleasure of the
Union with respect to any matter of wages, hours of
work, and working conditions not specifically covered
within the contract. However, you may wish to consider
substituting the G.M. language for the current language
in this contract.
HAMMOND WHEEL FOUNDRY
We have had relatively few grievances at this plant.
The grievances which did arise did not occur as the
result of any contract defects. In all of the cases I have
had occasion to handle at this plant, the contract served
well to maintain our position.
Regarding provisions in the agreement that might be
modified, changed, amended, or eliminated entirely to our
advantage, I suggested the following points for con
sideration :
284
1. Grievances— Step E of the grievance procedure
which covers the submission of unsettled grievances to
arbitration should require the Union to submit itŝ re
quest for arbitration within a specified period of time.
2. Military Clause— The military clause should be re
vised. It refers now to the Selective Service Act of 1940.
3. Vacations— The provision in this clause referring
to employees qualifying for two week vacations should
be revised to eliminate reference to the “ receipt of earn
ings.” This language should be made consistent with
the language applied to employees qualifying for one week
and three week vacations which language refers to the
performance of work.
4. Termination— The final paragraph of this pro
vision is similar to the G.M. provision which eliminates
any obligation to negotiate with the Union during the
term of the contract on any matters of wages, hours of
work and working conditions not specifically covered by
the agreement. You may, however, wish to substitute
the G.M. language for this current provision.
WORCESTER
The number of grievances at this plant have been large
with the emphasis being on questions of seniority. An
other sizable group of grievances at this plant have
concerned the matter of wages; these, of course, are not
questions which resulted from any contract failure, but
rather because of this Union’s insistance on using the
grievance procedure as a method of negotiating wage
rate increases.
A review of this agreement indicates the following de
sirable changes:
1. Seniority— Plant-wide seniority is provided for un
der this agreement and disputes occur whenever forces
are increased or decreased due to the fact that this
285
Union challenges all applications of the ability factor.
This is true even though the current agreement provides
for the consideration of seniority in any increase or de
crease in force where the employee “ has the necessary
skill and ability to perform the work involved." The use
of the term “ necessary skill and ability” is stronger than
in our other contracts where the simple term “ ability”
applies. There was some indication for a short period
during discussion of seniority grievances, that Interna
tional Representative Brennan might be willing to agree
that the application of ability would be based on the
Company’s records; i.e., if an employee’s record shows
that he has satisfactorily performed like or similar work
for the Company at some previous time, such employee
would be considered as having ability to perform the
work involved. Some effort should be made in negotiat
ing a new contract to clarify the matter of ability.
2. Vacations— The same incorrect terminology that
appears in the Butler and Hammond agreements with
respect to employees qualifying for two week vacations
(use of the term “ earnings” instead of “work” ) appears
in the vacation clause in this contract.
3. Termination— The termination provision in this
agreement does not contain any language to prevent
the Union from bringing up for negotiation during the
life of the contract, any matter not specifically set forth
in the agreement. The G. M. clause or something similar
to it should be included in this contract.
286
CHICAGO— August 27, 1952
MR. C, W. BRYAN, Jr.:
* * * *
Germano stated that the Union would prefer to negotiate,
here in Chicago or some other central point, a master
contract for the entire Company on all issues. However,
he said he would be willing to negotiate with us here at
the Company level on the basic principles of the Steel
settlement, and upon reaching an agreement on the prin
ciples, call to Chicago a representative of each of the six
local Unions and an International representative of each
of the six local Unions for a discussion with him on the
agreement of principles reached with us. It was his
thought that the local Union representative and local In
ternational representative could then go to the plant which
they represented and negotiate the rest of the labor agree
ment with the Works Manager. * * *
Germano stated that a “must,” whether we bargain a
local plant contract or bargain a Company-wide master
contract, is a uniform termination date of labor agree
ments at the six plants represented by the Steelworkers
— CIO.
* * * *
COMPANY EX. 13—FOURTH DOCUMENT
R o b e r t C. S m it h
287
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e s p o n d e n c e
s u b j e c t : DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY
PLEASE REFER TO FILE
Bessemer, Alabama
July 10, 1953
MR. J.E. BOLEN:
After our meeting with Mr. Sleeman this morning and
checking our seniority file would like to suggest to you
that the Truck & Tractor Department, also Miscellaneous
Stores Department be considered along with the Steel
Stores set-up, as we have several employees in the Mis
cellaneous Stores Department working now under Mr.
Studdard and carrying seniority in Miscellaneous Stores
Dept, under Mr. Bradshaw’s responsibility.
H e r m a n T h o m p s o n
COMPANY EX. 13—FIFTH DOCUMENT
HST :bc
cc: Messrs. W. C. Sleeman
A. F. Smith
288
COMPANY EX. 14—FIRST DOCUMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tenth Region
Ten Forsyth Street Building
Atlanta, Georgia
August 2, 1941
Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co.
401 No. 24th Street
Bessemer, Alabama
Re: Case No. X-R-468
Gentlemen:
This office is in receipt of a petition for investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, such petition
having been filed by the Steel Workers Organizing Com
mittee. In this petition it is alleged that the appropriate
unit for purposes of collective bargaining is composed
of all production and maintenance employees, exclusive of
foremen, superintendents and clerical forces. It is stated
further that the Union represents 1000 of the employees
in the above classification.
* * * *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. R-2952
I n t h e M a t t e r of
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d Ca r M a n u f a c t u r in g C o m p a n y
and
S t e e l W o r k e r s Or g a n iz in g C o m m it t e e
MOTION ON BEHALF OF PULLMAN-STANDARD
CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Now comes Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing
Company, a party in the above styled cause, and respect
fully moves this honorable Board to consider and
amend its Decision and Direction of Elections heretofore
entered in said cause as of the 12th day of September,
1941, in the following particulars, namely:
(1) By striking out from the Board’s Findings of Fact
that sub-paragraph of paragraph numbered V reading as
follows:
“ Watchmen and plant-protection employees. The
Federal Labor Union desires the inclusion of these
employees in the industrial unit. The S.W.O.C. has
not expressed its position with regard to these em
ployees. We shall include the watchmen and plant-
protection employees in the industrial unit.”
and by substituting therefor the words in substance:
“ Watchmen and plant-protection employees shall
be excluded from both the craft and industrial
units.”
(2) By striking out from paragraph 3 of Direction
of Elections the words appearing in lie 3 of said para
graph: “watchmen, plant-protection employees,” .
289
COMPANY EX. 14—SECOND DOCUMENT
290
In support of the above and foregoing motion Pullman-
Standard Car Manufacturing Company respectfully sub
mits that it is inappropriate that watchmen and plant-
protection employees be included in any collective bar
gaining unit for the obvious reason that in the event
of labor troubles of any kind or character such watch
men and plant-protection employees should have no selfish
or personal interest in the result of any such labor
troubles, but should be in a position to discharge their
full duties free of any influence of selfish or personal
interest in the union or any such labor difficulties.
The S.W.O.C. has advised the company through Noel
R. Beddow, its Regional Director, that S.W.O.C. will con
sent and agree to the exclusion of said watchmen and
plant-protection employees from voting in any of said
elections. The company anticipates that appropriate rep
resentatives of Federal Labor Union will be willing to
make a similar agreement if and when the company is
able to contact such representatives and ascertain their
views. The company is now endeavoring to contact such
representatives and will advise this Board as soon as
such contact has been made whether or not the said
Federal Labor Union will make a like stipulation with
regard to the exclusion of such watchmen and plant-pro
tection employees.
Respectfully submitted,
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d C a r
M a n u f a c t u r in g Co m p a n y
By C a b a n is s & J o h n s t o n
Its Attorneys
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing motion
has been mailed to Noel R. Beddow, at Birmingham, Alabama,
Regional Director of Steel Workers Organizing Committee, J. L.
Giglio, at Birmingham, Alabama, representative of Federal Labor
Union, J. R. May, at Montgomery, Alabama, attorney for IBEW,
and Mr. J. H. Howard, Washington, D.C. and Mr. J. D. Baum
gardner, at Birmingham, Alabama, attorneys for IAM.
Jelks H. Cabaniss
291
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. B-2952
I n t h e M a t t e r of
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d Ca r M a n u f a c t u r in g C o m p a n y
a n d
S t e e l w o r k e r s O r g a n iz in g C o m m it t e e
MOTION ON BEHALF OF STEEL WORKERS OR
GANIZING COMMITTEE FOR REHEARING IN
MATTER OF INSTALLATION AND CONFIRMA
TION OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO
SECTION 9(c) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RE
LATIONS ACT.
Comes your Petitioner in the above styled cause and
respectfully move this Honorable Board to reconsider
the Decision and Direction of Election heretofore ren
dered in the above styled cause on September 12, 1941,
and grant Petitioner a rehearing in said cause and for
grounds of said Motion assigns the following:
1. That the Decision and Direction of Election is not
supported by the Record in said case.
2. The Record affirmatively shows that the Steel Work
ers Organizing Committee has carried on negotia
tions in collective bargaining with the Pullman
Standard Car Manufacturing Company for a period
of more than four years regardless of the fact that
said negotiations have been conducted with little
success. Petitioner feels that it should not be penal
ized because of the fact that these negotiations have
been unsuccessful which would be the case if the
fact of such negotiations were ignored by this Hon
COMPANY EX. 14—THIRD DOCUMENT
292
orable Board in the matter. The negotiations have
been unsuccessful because of the failure of the com
pany to negotiate with the union in good faith and
thus to ignore the fact of these negotiations would
be in effect to penalize the union for the unfair
labor practices indulged in by the employer.
* * * *
4. The Record shows that the unit contended for by
the International Association of Machinists is made
up of employees who have never heretofore been
classed as machinists either by the Intervening
union or by the company. Said employees work
in many diversified and unrelated types of work
and are spread in small groups all over the com
pany’s plant and have very little in common either
from the standpoint of similarity of tasks, rates of
pay or degree of skill.
Your Petitioner feels that if the Decision heretofore
rendered in this case is allowed to stand that an election
held pursuant to such Decision and Direction of Election
will in no way be instrumental in bringing about har
mony in the operation of the Company’s plant but rather
will totally and entirely defeat the purposes and policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, as stated in Sec
tion 1 thereof.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, Your Petitioner, Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, moves this Honorable
Board to again review the Record in this case and enter
an order withdrawing the Decision and Direction of
Election heretofore rendered on September 12, 1941 and
enter an order directing that an election be held on the
basis of the finding by the Board that the appropriate
unit for such election shall be an industrial unit in which
all the production and maintenance employees exclusive
of foreman, superintendents and clerical forces, be per
mitted to vote and thus determine whether they desire
to be represented by the Steel Workers Organizing Com
mittee, either of the three intervening unions or by no
union.
Petitioner prays for such other, further or more gen
eral relief to which it may be entitled in the premises.
Respectfully submitted.
S t e e l w o r k e r s O r g a n iz in g C o m m it t e e
Affiliated with Congress of
Industrial Organizations
Steiner Bldg., Birmingham, Ala.
By: / s / J. R. Crawford, Representative
Noel R. Beddow, Regional Director
294
COMPANY EX. 14—FOURTH DOCUMENT
CABANISS & JOHNSTON
First National Building
Birmingham
January 19, 1942
Mr. W. C. Sleeman,
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.,
Bessemer, Alabama.
Dear Mr. Sleeman:
As I telephoned the office, representatives of the NLRB
and also the Regional Director in Atlanta, are calling
and writing to ask that the Company let them have re
turn with its OK so far as the Company is concerned,
of the agreement as to reclassification agreed on between
AFL and CIO.
I see no adverse bearing in letting them have return
of the memorandum with the Company’s OK, particu
larly if as I suggested, it be made subject to NLRB.
Since the Atlanta office seems to attach some importance
to it I suggest you let it go forward.
It seems certain now that AFL and CIO have buried
the hatchet and will within a few days form a solid
front to maintain their extraordinary position both now
and after the war; in short, that we will have labor
control of government and industry in line with the
British post-war certainty. So far as this plant is con
cerned it doesn’t seem to me to make much difference as
to the classification.
Very truly yours,
FJ :LC
/ s / Forney Johnston
295
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
— < CIO > —
Third Floor Steiner Building
Birmingham 3, Alabama
[ u n io n b u g ]
May 18,1944
N o e l R. B e d d o w , R. E . F a r r ,
SOUTHERN DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DISTRICT 36
Mr. W. C. Sleeman
Manager of Works
Pullman Car Mfg. Co.
Bessemer, Alabama
Dear Sir:
We have been requested by what we think might be
a substantial majority of your employees, who are now
in the I.A.M. Unit, to bargain for them in regards to
rate of pay, hours of work and conditions of employment.
We are not soliciting or coercing any employees in
this department to become members of our Union and the
request that has been made by them has been volun
tarily on their part.
They also request that we ask you for a negotiation
of a contract which would include these employees in the
same contract that we have with you in the United Steel
workers’ Bargaining Unit.
Thanking you for your past cooperation, I am
Very truly yours,
/ s / R. E. Farr
R. E . F a r r , Director
District #36
COMPANY EX. 14—FIFTH DOCUMENT
REF/df
296
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tenth Region
10 Forsyth Street
Atlanta 3, Georgia
May 25, 1944
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company
401 North 24th Street
Bessemer, Alabama
Re: Case No. 10-R-1212
COMPANY EX. 14—SIXTH DOCUMENT
Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that United Steelworkers of
America, May 25, 1944, filed with this office a petition
for investigation and certification of representatives, pur
suant to the provisions of the National Labor Relations
Act, alleging that a question affecting commerce has
arisen concerning the representation of employees in the
following unit:
“ All machinists, apprentices and helpers, employees in
tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handymen, and
cranemen, millwrights, production and maintenance weld
ers, employees in wheel, axle and truck shop, except for
foremen, leaders and clerical employees.”
* * * *
297
Bessemer, Alabama
May 26, 1944
MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
We are attaching photostat copy of NLRB’s letter of
May 25, 1944, which has been cased under the number
10-R-1212, in which it is noted the CIO is petitioning for
an investigation and certification of representatives from
the departments now represented by the IAM. It so hap
pens (as is usually the case) the request by the CIO is
to our notion all “balled up” in that they are asking for
representation which they already have; that is, the
Truck Shop. They apparently want representation for
all departments for whom the IAM now represents, but
do not request same in that they have omitted the fol
lowing occupations which were specifically set out as a
part of the IAM bargaining unit in the letter signed by
both the IAM and the Steelworkers Organizing Com
mittee, which clarified the NLRB’s order for this bar
gaining unit. The occupations which have been omitted
in this letter are taekers, burners and welder helpers in
the Welding Department, the Air Brake Department in
cluding pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers, air testers and the
tool room employees in the Steel Erection Department.
It is hardly conceivable they would want IAM to rep
resent these particular departments in that there are
only approximately 45 employees in these departments
which have been omitted.
* * * *
W. C. Sl e e m a n
48- * * *
COMPANY EX. 14—SEVENTH DOCUMENT
298
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
— <C IO > —
Third Floor Steiner Building
Birmingham 3, Alamaba
[UNION BUG]
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 4-8534
R. E . F a r r
DIRECTOR DISTRICT 36
December 12,1945
Mr. W.C. Sleeman, Manager
Pullman Standard Car Mfg. Co.
Bessemer Plant
401 - North 24th Street
Bessemer, Ala.
Dear Sir:
This is to inform you that the majority of the elec
tricians, electrician helpers and employees of the elec
trical department, now in a unit set up by the National
Labor Relations Board known as the I.B.E.W. unit of
your plant, has requested the United tSeelworkers to
represent them.
We would like to meet with you at an early date.
Looking forward to getting these men under a workable
agreement with the United Steelworkers of America,
I am
Yours truly,
/ s / R. M. Poarch
R. M. P o a r c h
Field Representative
[SEAL]
COMPANY EX. 14-EIGHTH DOCUMENT
RMP/fh
REGISTERED MAIL
299
[SEAL] [EMBLEM]
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tenth Region
300 Ten Forsyth Street Building
Atlanta 3, Georgia
January 18, 1946
Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company
401 North 24th Street
Bessemer, Alabama
Re: Case No. 10-R-1711
Gentlemen:
United Steelworkers of America (CIO) has filed with
this office a Petition for Certification of Representatives,
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, claiming to represent a majority of the employees
in the following allegedly appropriate unit:
The Unit now covered by the United Steelworkers
of American to be expanded to include all production
and maintenance employees that were formerly in
the I.B.E.W. Unit except for foremen and super
visors.
This matter has been referred ot Field Examiner
Frederick A. Alcher for handling. On or before January
25, 1946, will you please forward to him in this office
the following information:
1. One completed copy of the enclosed Interstate Com
merce Questionnaire. You may retain the other copy
of your files.
2. Name of any labor organization that has a con
tract with you (and two copies of the contract) or has
COMPANY EX. 14—NINTH DOCUMENT
300
made a request for recognition as collective bargaining
representative of any of the employees in petitioner’s
alleged appropriate unit.
3. Your position as to the appropriateness of the unit
set forth in the petition as described in the first para
graph of this letter. If you disagree as to the appropri
ateness of the unit, please state in detail the unit you
believe to be appropriate and your reasons for any
changes you suggest.
4. An alphabetical list of all employees showing job
classifications as of the present date and a statement of
the percentage turnover per month. This list is neces
sary to determine whether or not the union has a suffi
cient interest to warrant proceeding with the case and
holding an election. Failure to furnish the list will, of
course, result in the acceptance of the union’s evidence
as to its interest without further check.
5. Any reason why an election should not be held in
the unit as set forth in the first paragraph of this letter
at this time or in the near furnish.
We wish to cooperate in every possible way with you
and the labor organization involved so that there may
be an early and appropriate disposition of this matter.
Please do not hesitate to discuss with the Field Examiner
any question you may have.
Very truly yours,
/ s / Paul L. Styles
P a u l L. S t y l e s
Regional Director
Enclosures :
Interstate Commerce Questionnaire— 2
301
(Suggested form of letter to NLRB in reply to
request dated January 18, 1946)
Mr. Fred Aicher, Field Examiner,
National Labor Relations Board,
300 Ten Forsyth Street Building,
Atlanta 3, Georgia.
Dear Sir:
In reply to the letter of Regional Director Paul L.
Styles, we advise as follows:
1. Copy of Interstate Commerce Questionnaire is re
turned, except that questions IX to XVI are included in
our reply to XVI, which concedes that the Company’s
purchase of interstate materials and the nature of busi
ness is sufficient to subject the Company’s operation at
Bessemer to the National Labor Relations Act. This
has been determined in previous proceedings and is not
questioned.
2. Hereto attached are two copies of contract between
this Company and International Brotherhood of Electri
cal Workers heretofore certified as bargaining agency
for the electrical workers at this Company’s Bessemer
plant, together with an amendment dated October 9,
1944. This contract was in effect on October 31, 1945
when all of the electrical workers at that plant struck.
This strike resulted in a stoppage of production work at
the plant for more than a month and until the Company
was able to replace all of the striking workers. All of
the striking employees have applied for or have ac
cepted termination slips. Several have requested re
employment, but have not been re-employed on account
of the fact that their places were and are filled by new
workers employed during the course of the strike. At
the time of the strike the Company employed thirteen
COMPANY EX. 14—TENTH DOCUMENT
302
electrical workers. As of the period January 14 - January
20th, the Company had in its employ twenty-eight work
ers in that unit. The excess number were employed on
account of maintenance neglected during the strike.
3. The Company understands that a separate unit for
electrical workers in the plant is not requested by the
petitioning unit, but that the petition of the Union is
that the electrical workers be included among the pro
duction and maintenance employees now represented by
United Steelworkers of America (CIO). In short, the
Company understands that the petition is that the pro
posed bargaining unit represented by United Steelwork
ers of America is to include all production and main
tenance employees at the Bessemer plant other than ex
ecutive, supervisory, clerical, foremen and leaders with
the exception of the following:
All machinists, machinist apprentices, machinist
helpers; employees in tool and die shop classified as
die men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom
helpers, handy-men and crane men, other than
laborers and hook-ons; also all millwrights.
Presently included within this general unit, as a re
sult of agreement between International Association of
Machinists and United Steelworkers of America Local
No. 1466, are the following workers, who are already
represented by said United Steelworkers of America
(CIO), with the general exception of supervisory and
clerical employees first above stated, viz:
“ * * all employees classified as production and main
tenance burners, welders, tackers, burner and welder
helpers; employees in the wheel and axle depart
ment ; airbrake production employees classified as
pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers and airbrake testers;
employees in erection department classified as tool
room men and tool-room helpers, *
303
This Company takes no position for or against the
practical inclusion of electrical workers in the above or
any bargaining unit with which the electrical workers
employed at this plant desire to affiliate, but does not
consider a general vote of all plant employees desirable,
for the reason stated below.
4. Attached hereto is a list showing all electrical work
ers in the Bessemer plant on the payroll January 14-
January 20, 1946. Between October 31st and December
— , when electrical work was resumed at the plant, the
turnover was 100% as a result of replacement of workers
who had struck or quit. Since resumption of operations
on December — , 1945, a total of —— electrical workers
had been employed and ------ of that number have been
released or quit.
5. The Company does not see any reason why there
should be a general election of all workers in the Com
pany’s Bessemer plant to vote on the proposed enlarged
unit set forth in the petition. Such action would un
necessarily involve participation by the large number of
workers at the plant already represented by United
Steelworkers of America in a detail in which they are
not, from a practical standpoint, interested. It would
involve unnecessary expense and confusion in operations
to call on these general workers to vote with respect to
the extension of the unit to include electrical workers.
The Company suggests that any question of representa
tion of the electrical workers be determined by check or
vote of such workers.
Very truly yours,
P u l l m a n S t a n d a r d C ar
M a n u f a c t u r in g C o m p a n y
(Bessemer Plant)
By
304
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BESSEMER, ALABAMA PLANT
Electrical Department Employees
Payroll 1-4 to 1-20 inclusive
Name____________________________ Occupation
William Anthony
Curtis G. Bailey
Gerald Beggs
James A. Carver
Oscar L. Carver
George A. Christian
Frank Clements
William W. Dawkins
Charles H. Dove
John Dove
Louis Edwards
John P. Fleming
Willie E. Hall
Joe Harper
Joseph S. Hollingsworth, Sr.
John L. Kelley
Jesse A. Lanier
John D. McCrory, Jr.
Orris C. Miller
Wallace F. Milner
Arthur L. Phillips
Lloyd B. Rainey
John A. Roberts
William M. Roberts
Menendezth L. Snow
Harvey D. Trawick
Hugh B. Yallely
William R. Wamiek
Electrician
Electrician
Power House Operator
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Power House Operator
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
305
COMPANY EX. 15
MISCELLANEOUS
Bessemer, Alabama
January 30, 1948
MEMORANDUM TO FILE:
This morning at approximately 10:30 Mr. R. C. Logan,
Superintendent, and Mr. K. C. Chapman, Assistant to
Mr. Logan, of the Eastern Car Company, Limited, of
Trenton, Nova Scotia, came to the Plant and were taken
through the Plant by Bolen.
During their visit to the Plant, Bolen was told that
at the present time they were building 15 standard box
cars per day with a working force of approximately 1100
men and an additional 100 men were employed making
doors (Camel) and other necessary material.
They advised their building was 90' wide and approxi
mately 1200' long, with an erection track of 8 positions
for hopper cars or 9 positions for box cars. Did not
know their rivet driving averages nor did not discuss
in detail production methods or amounts of production-
obtained, however, they did leave with us a copy of their
car contract which included all their hourly guarantee
rates and we were advised that these rates had been
increased by 5y2̂ per hour recently. They also advised
their piece work men were expected to earn from 30 to
50% above their hourly guarantee rates.
* * * *
THE EASTERN CAR COMPANY, LTD.
RATE SCHEDULE— 1947
SHEARING DEPARTM ENT:
Working- Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%
—2nd Class ...........................................................................98
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................92
306
Coper 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6— Operator ............................................72%
—Helper ................................................................................. 70%
Shear 1, 2, 4 and, 5— O perator......................................................72%
— Helper ..... .................................. -...................... -................70%
PRESSING D EPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................... ............... $1.04%
— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 98
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................92
Large Press'— Operator ................................................. -................ 73
— 1st Helper ________ ________-.................................. - .71%
— 2nd Helper ..... .................-.............. - ...............-...........71%
—3rd Helper ........................................................................70%
— 4th Helper ........................... 70%
Lever Boy .............................................................................. 56%
Small Press,— Operator ....................... ... ...............................- -73
— 1st Helper ........................—................-.............................71%
— 2nd Helper ........................ -70%
Lever Boy .......................................................................... -..............56%
PUNCHING DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%
— 2nd Class ........................................................................98
— 3rd Class ........................................................................92
Punch 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19— O perator...... . .72%
— Helper ................................................................................. 70%
Punch 3, 4 and 10— Operator ...... ................................................. 73
—-Helper ................................................................................. 71%
Punch 12— Operator .......................................................................76
— 1st Helper ............................................ -.................... .71%
— 2nd Helper .................................-................... -................ 70%
Machine Cleaner ...... ..................... .—......-....................... -......- .68%
Markers ..............................................................................................72%
Die Setters— 1st Class ..................................................................... 84
— 2nd Class ............................... 79%
CONSTRUCTION & ERECTION DEPARTMENT :
Working Foreman— 1st Class-............................... - ........— $1.04%
— 2nd Class ................................................. —-....................98
—3rd C lass..............................................................................92
Inspector ..............................................................................................86%
Steel Chaser ......................................................................................84
Riveters ........................................................................................76-.84
Buckers .......................................................................................... 75-.77
Reamers .............. ...........................................-.......................... - -74
Fitters ....................................................... -........................... -............74
Heaters— 1st Class .............................................-........... -................ 69%
— 2nd Class.................. -61
307
— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 58%
Sticker— 1st C lass..............................-..............................................69%
— 2nd Class..............................................................................61
— 3rd C lass.................................................-........................... 56%
Chippers ..................-......-.........-............................-............................76
TRUCK DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...... ........................................ $1.04%
— 2nd Class ...................................... .................................... 98
— 3rd Class ........................................................................... 92
Dopers—1st Class ............................. ......-.......... -........................... 79%
—2nd Class......... 74
F itte rs ......... ...............................................................-........................ 74
Helpers ........................................................................................- .70%
WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT :
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............... - $1.04%
— 2nd Class ........................................... - -98
— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 92
Axle T urners...............................................................................72-.86
Wheel R ollers................................................ 70%
Tool Grinders ............................................................................ -84
Boring Mill Operator ..... ........................................................ 73-.85
WOOD ERECTION DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class .............~................................ $1.04%
— 2nd Class. .............................. -........................................... 98
— 3rd Class ............................................................................. 92
Carpenters.— 1st Class ..................................................................... 88
— 2nd Class, Bldg. T rack .................................................... 73
— Helpers ............................... 71%
PAINT DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%
-—2nd Class ............................................................ -............. 98
— 3rd Class ............................................ 92
Painters. ........................................................................................76-.84
Paint Mixers.—1st Class .......................... -.............................. -84
— 2nd Class............................................................................. 78
Sprayers ................................................ .70-.82
MACHINE SH OP:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%
— 2nd Class........................................-.................... -..............98
— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 92
Machinists;— 1st Class ............................................................. -93%
— 2nd Class ........................................................... -..............90
— 3rd Class ........................................................................... 86
— 4th Class ............................................................................. 76
Drill Handle and Operators ........
Repairmen— 1st Class ...................
— 2nd Class .........................
— 3rd Class ...........................
Blacksmith ........................................
Blacksmith’s Helper .......................
Tool Room Attendant ...................
FORGE DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ___
— 2nd Class...........................
—3rd C lass...........................
Ajax No. 1— Operator ...................
— Helper ...............................
Ajax No. 2.— O perator...................
— Helper ...............................
A jax NO'. 3— Operator ...................
— Helper ...............................
Drill No. 1 and 2— Operator ......
Drill No. 3— Operator ...................
—Helper ...............................
Drill No. 4—Operator ...................
Drill No. 5— Operator ...................
Bulldozer No. 1 and 2— Operator
— Helper ...............................
Bulldozer No. 3— Operator ...........
Bulldozer No. 4— Operator ...........
Shear No. 1 and 2— Operator .......
Shear No*. 3— Operator .................
Eye Bender— Operator .................
Markers ...................... .....................
Hammer No. 1— Blacksmith ........
— Helper ...............................
Hammer No. 2— Operator ............
— Blacksmith .... ............. .
—1st Helper .......................
— 2nd Helper .......................
Hammer No. 4— O perator............
— Helper ...............................
Hammer No. 5— Operator ............
— Helper .............................
Hammer No>. 6— O perator............
— Helper ...............................
Hammer No. 7— Operator ............
— Helper ...............................
Hammer No. 8— Operator ....... ....
— Helper .......................... .
Punch No. 6— Operator ..... .......
.73
.82
.80
.76
•93%
.71%
.79%
$1.04%
.98
.92
.76
.71%
.73
•71%
.76
.71%
.73
.73
.70%
.73
.73
.76
•71%
.73
.73
.72%
•72%
.73
•72%
.84
.71%
.73
.90
•71%
.71%
.76
•71%
.76
•71%
.76
.71%
.76
.71%
.73
•71%
•72%
Punch No. ft— O perator................................................................... 72%
Punch No. 39— Operator ................................................................. 72%
Blacksmith— 1st Class ..................................................................... 93%
— 2nd Class..............................................................................90
—3rd C lass....................................................... -84
— Helper ............................................. 71%
— Fireman ...................... 71%
— Stockchaser.................................................................. .76
Grinders— Operator .................................. 73
Butt Welder— Operator ..... .76
— Helper ..................................................................................71%
CARPENTERS & CONSTRUCTION M E N :
Working Foreman— 1st C lass................................................. $1.04%
— 2nd Class..............................................................................98
— 3rd C lass..............................................................................92
Janitor ................................................................................................ 69%
Carpenters—1st Class .............................................................. .83
— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 79%
PATTERN DEPARTM ENT:
Pattern Makers— 1st C lass.............................................................93%
— 2nd Class...... .................... 90
—-3rd Class ...................................................................- .86
MILLWRIGHT DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ................................................. $1.04%
—2nd Class .............................. ....................................- .98
— 3rd C lass..............................................................................92
Millwrights'— 1st Class ...................................... 86%
—2nd Class............................................ 81
— 3rd Class............................................................................. 79
— 4th C lass.............................................................. 76
Sprinkler Attendant ......................................................................... 76
FURNACE M E N :
Furnace Repairman— 1st Class ................... 82
— 2nd Class .......................................... .77%
— Helpers ............................................................................... 73
ELECTRICAL DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass................................................. $1.04%
— 2nd Class..................................................... ....................... 98
—3rd C lass............................................................................. 92
Winders— 1st Class ........................................................................93%
— 2nd Class ...........................................................................90
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................86
Repairman— 1st Class ....................... -93%
— 2nd Class ..................................................... -.................... 90
310
— 3rd Class ....................................
— 4th Class ..................... -.............
— 5th Class ......................................
Crane Operator— 1st Class .....................
— 2nd Class ....... ..................... -
ELECTRIC & ACETYLENE WELDING
DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............
— 2nd Class ....................................
— 3rd Class ....................................
Welders— 1st Class ........ ................... -......
— 2nd Class ....................................
— 3rd C lass............................ .........
—Helpers .......................- ...............
SHOP LABOR:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass.......... —
— 2nd Class......................................
— 3rd C lass.....................................
Head Fireman— 1st Class ............. —
Hookon— 1st Class ..................... -........... ■
— 2nd Class.....................................
Firemen .................-.....-......-.......-.............
Transfer Man ...........................................
Laborers .....................................................
Leader on Bolt Table ............................
PNEUMATIC TOOL ROOM:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ................
— 2nd Class ..... .............................
— 3rd C lass.....................................
Tool Repairs— 1st C lass..........................
— 2nd Class ........ ..........................
— 3rd Class .....................................
— 4th Class......................................
— Attendant ....................... -..........
PLANING MILL:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass................
— 2nd Class ......... ........................
—3rd C lass...... ..............................
Planer W -l— Operator ............................
— Helper ............ ........... .................
Gainer and Borer— Operator.................
— Helper ........................................
Swing Cut-off Saw W-10— Operator ...
— Helper ........................................
Motiser-Vertical— Operator .................
.86
.81
.76
.79%
.76
$i.04y2
.98
.92
.90
.84
.76
•70y2
$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.76
.76
.73
.711/2
.76
.691/2
.76
$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.84
.83
.791/2
.76
.691/2
$1,041/2
.98
.92
.74
.701/2
.74
.701/2
.74
.701/2
.74
311
Shaper W-20— Operator .......................
Auto-Cut-Off Saw W-24— O perator....
Matcher W-32— Operator.......................
— 1st H elper.................................
— 2nd Helper ...... ........................
Sizor W -l— Operator ................-
— 1st H elper.................................
— 2nd Helper ...............................
Tool Dresser— 1st Class .......................
— 2nd Class .................................
— Helpers ......................................
AIR & EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............
— 2nd Class................ - -..........
-—3rd C lass...................................
Pipe Fitters ........... -........-......—...............
GALVANIZING DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............
-—2nd Class.................. -................
— 3rd Class...................................
•—Kettle Operator— 1st Class ...
— 2nd Class .......................... -........
Acid Men— 1st Class .............................
— 2nd Class ------------- -........
Helpers— 1st Class .................................
— 2nd Class ........................-........
SAND BLAST DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman;— 1st Class, ............
— 2nd Class..................................
— 3rd Class ................................
— Operators ................................
— Helpers ..........—.......................
— Repairmen ...............................
— Oilers .............................. -.......
TINSMITH DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...........
— 2nd Class......... .......- ...............
— 3rd Class..................................
Tinsmith— 1st Class ............................
— 2nd Class ................................
Helpers— 1st Class ................................
— 2nd Class .............- ...... - ........
-—3rd C lass....... ,.........................
WOODEN CAR STORE ROOM:
Working Foreman .............. ..................
.74
.74
.74
.7oy2
.701/z
.74
■70y2
•701/a
.931/2
.90
.701/a
$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.76
$ 1,043/2
.98
.92
.85
.82
.801/2
.781/2
.771/2
.75
$ 1 ,041/2
.98
.92
.791/2
.76
.90
.791/2
$1,041/2
.98
.92
.831/2
.81
.76
.72
.711/2
.791/2
312
Attendant ......................................................... ——........................... 68%
General Stores— Foreman Casting Yard ....................................79%
— Checkers 1st Class ...........................................................73%
2nd Class ........................................-..............................71
— Attendant .............-.............................................................69%
— Truck D r iv er ..................................................... .69%-.76
STEEL Y A R D :
Working Foreman— 1st Class .............................................. - $1.04%
— 2nd Class..............................................................................98
— 3rd Class .......................................................-........... -92
— Hookon 1st Class ........ — ...........................-.................. 76
2nd Class ..........................................................................73
LUMBER Y A R D :
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%
— 2nd Class ......................................... -.................................98
— 3rd Class .................... .........................................................92
Lumber Sorter ........................................................................ -76
Dry Kiln Attendant ......................................................................... 76
Checker— 1st Class ......................................................................... 73%
— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 71
Inspector (Road) ..............................................................per day 8.03
POWER HOUSE:
Boiler Operator ................................................................................. 80
Mill Operator ..................... ............................................... .............. 76
Firemen ................,........................ ................................................... 76
Boiler Cleaner ................... ................................................................76
Ashmen ............................................................................ -.................. 70%
Engineer Operator ......... ....................... .................................- .86%
Pump Operator ................................................................................. 76
Engineer Operator (Old Unit) .......... 78%
Oiler .................................................................................................... 69%
Repairmen ..........................................................................................86%
Clerk ..............................................................................................73-.76
LOCOMOTIVE & YARD CRANE :
Clerk .....................................................................................................89%
Locomotive Engineer ........................................................ - .86
Crane Operator— 1st Class .............................................................86%
— 2nd Class............................................................................. 78%
Brakemen ............................................................................................76
Firemen ..... ................................................. ......................................76
Night Watchmen and Firemen .................................................... 76
Leading Brakeman (Night) .......................................................... 82
TRACK CONSTRUCTION & REPAIRM EN :
Trackmen ............................................................................................71%
Labor ....................................................................................—- .69%
313
C O M P A N Y E X . 16
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD
#111-2416-D
I n t h e M a t t e r op
T h e P u l l m a n St a n d a r d Ca r
M a n u f a c t u r in g C o m p a n y
a n d
U n it e d S t e e l w o r k e r s o p A m e r ic a , C IO
F or a n d o n B e h a l f of L o c a l 1466
REPLY OF PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANU
FACTURING COMPANY TO BRIEF FILED BY
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA CIO
There are a number of statements in the Union brief
that are inadvertent and might properly be corrected,
but may be passed by as immaterial or can be corrected
at the hearing.
The following comment is limited to certain statements
or arguments in the brief which seem clearly in error:
■* * * *
8. The CIO brief (page 6, etc.) undertakes to give
the impression that this plant is discriminating against
the negro, or operating under some sort of North-South
differential. It is obvious that no such vague and un
limited inquiry or charge is involved in this matter. Not
a single fact is suggested in the CIO brief to justify
the contention that it is involved. The suggestion is so
lacking in any foundation in fact that the Company is
not willing to treat it as an issue. There is probably
not a colored worker at this plant who would not ex
press his belief in the considerate treatment of the ne
groes at the Pullman plant. This shop is primarily a
314
piece shop work. Earnings reflect the amount of effort
put forth. There are many instances in which good
colored workers show higher earnings than the white
workers. On the other hand, the records show instances
in which the white workers on machines usually operated
by colored workers, doing the same work at the same
rate, have substantially exceeded the earnings of the
colored worker. There is nothing to justify the implied
suggestion that as to white or colored employees they
should be forced to an arbitrary dead level of earnings
without respect to the effort put forth.
* * *
12. As to Union security and check-off. The Com
pany denies point blank the statement that the Com
pany’s tactics in negotiations have created dissatisfac
tion among the union members and that its anti-labor
history justifies the necessity for union security now.
It is to be doubted if there is a plant in the South in
which there is less justification for either statement.
There is not a pending or unsettled grievance between
the Company and any Union represented in this plant.
There has never been a grievance that was not promptly
considered and disposed of.
The sole questions open for discussion are those re
lating to the proposed new contracts. The statement of
the brief that there are three Unions in the plant and
that Union security is essential to prevent conflict is not
even remotely justified by the facts. We have pointed
out that the bargaining units were established by over
whelming majorities at elections held for the purpose.
There has never been any complaint of encroachment
or any jurisdictional controversy or any effort of any one
of the Unions or any outside union to supersede any
existing union.
The existence of three unions in the plant is not only
not an argument for compulsory union maintenance. It
315
is, in this particular plant, an argument against freezing
personnel for the duration of their employment in any
particular union, since union maintenance would tend to
complicate the transfer of workers from one job to an
other, for which they are fitted, when such change is
required by the work offered to the plant or during pe
riods between full line production. This transfer has
been of definite benefit to the men in the past and the
Company does not want to be tied down by an arbitrary
agreement that would prohibit that necessary elasticity.
These men in the different unions work in many instances
side by side and without friction. If the Company has
to reverse their tasks or the handling of their jobs, in a
manner wholly satisfactory to the men, it does not want
to be limited by an arbitrary provision in a labor con
tract against that reasonable or necessary action, freez
ing them on a particular union.
The intimation of the brief (page 9) that the negro
workers are subject to coercion and intimidation by the
Company, and the unwarranted reference in the CIO
brief to the Company’s employment manager call for no
answer except the statement that they are too unfounded
and too irresponsible to merit any attention except the
statement that they are untrue and irresponsible. This
Company has never at any time coerced or intimidated
any negro or other employee into or out of any Union
or subjected any negro to unkind or inconsiderate treat
ment. The proportion of negro employees is not 70%. As
pointed out above, the work in this plant is so inter
mingled or interchangeable that the Company could not
“discriminate” substantially against Negro employees
without “ discriminating” against its white employees.
No one ever heard of alleged “negro-white” discrimina
tion at this plant until CIO’s representative indulged in
that suggestion first in Washington before the War
Labor Board in 1941 (resulting in a hearing and com
plete vindication of the Company) and again at the
time of the negotiation of the contract in 1942, when the
316
alleged mistreatment of negroes was one of the argu
ments for a wage increase before the War Labor Board
panel. No evidence of any such discrimination was
tendered and both the union and the War Labor Board
panel approved the present contract and wage scale.
The repetition of the argument as a basis for further
wage increase and also for union maintenance is there
fore nothing more than “ the same old monk and the
same old saddle-bags” ; nothing new, nothing pertinent,
nothing accurate.
The fact of the matter is that the only coercion of
negro workers proposed at the plant is the Union’s pro
posal to freeze them into the Union and require that they
be fired on demand by the Union if they fail to pay
their dues. If the negroes are not members or not pay
ing dues, the effect of the provision would be to coerce
them. The Company does not know whether they are
paying dues or not. If they are not, the compulsion
would tend to drive them out of the employment. If they
are, there is no necessity for the compulsion.
There is no necessity for it in any event. Whatever
the present status is, without compulsion, it is having no
adverse effect on employment at the plant or upon es
sential production. There are obvious respects in which
if required it might in this particular plant have an
adverse effect.
The requirement of compulsory union maintenance
would throw an arbitrary factor into the problem of
employment, which is greatly complicated by the labor
freeze order of the government.
* * * *
317
COMPANY EX. 18
[SENIORITY LIST OF PULLMAN’S BUTLER,
PA. PLANT AS OF EARLY 1956]
SHEAR DEPARTMENT
* * *
PRESS DEPARTMENT
* * * *
PUNCH DEPARTMENT
* * * *
FABRICATION DEPARTMENT
* * * <
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
* * * *
TRANSPORTATION & MATERIAL STORAGE
* * * *
ERECTION DEPARTMENT
* * * *
TRUCK AND AXLE DEPT.
* * * *
WOOD CAR PLANING MILL
* * * *
WOOD CAR ERECTION
* * * *
LABOR DEPARTMENT
The following workers in the department will be found
on the Unskilled List. Figures are to be used on Un
skilled only.
Mill Janitors
* * * *
318
Main Office Janitors
* * * *
Shop Laborers
* # * *
PAINT & EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT
* * * *
SHIPPING DEPARTMENT
* * * *
STEEL CAR STORES DEPARTMENT
* * * *
WELDING INSPECTORS
* * * *
GENERAL STORE ROOM
* * * *
BOLT & RIVET STORES
* * * *
COMMERCIAL FORCE DEPARTMENT
* * * *
STORES & TRANSPORTATION
RAILROAD DEPARTMENT
* * * *
DIE AND TOOL DEPARTMENT
* * * *
MACHINE REPAIR
* * * *
BLACKSMITH DEPARTMENT
* * * *
TOOL ROOM
* * * #
WELDING DEPARTMENT
** *
319
PATTERN DEPARTMENT
* * * #
CARPENTER DEPARTMENT
* * * *
POWER DEPARTMENT
* * * *
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
* * *
ELECTRICAL & CRANES
* * * *
ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT
* «• «* *
FOUNDRY
* * *• *
320
COMPANY EX. 23
SELECTED LABOR ARBITRATION
CASES AND TEXTS
R e l a t in g to t h e R a t io n a l B a s is fo r D e p a r t m e n t a l
Se n io r it y Sy s t e m s a s O ppo sed to
P l a n t w id e Se n io r it y
SELECTED LABOR ARBITRATION CASES AND TEXTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Benrus Watch Co., 2 LA 61 (1946) (Maxwell
Copelof) ....... .................................... -......... - .........
2. General Television & Radio Corp., 2 LA 483 (1942)
(Whitley-P. McCoy) .................. .............- ........
3. Republic Steel Corp., 2 LA 563 (1944) (Whitley P.
McCoy) .......... ...... ....... ........................ .......... .......
4. Santa Clara County & Central California Meat
Processor’s Ass’n, 36 LA 42 (1961) (Hubert
Wyckoff) ................................................ — .........
5. Rayonier, Inc., 62-2 ARB If 8458 (A. R. Marshall)..
6. Petro-Tex Chemical Co., 77-1 ARB U 8150 (Claude
B. Lilly) ____________ __________________ ____
7. Clarence M. Updegraff, Arbitration and Labor Re
lations (3d Ed.,) pp. 303-305 ........... ~...............
321
SUMMARY
THE RATONAL BASIS FOR DEPARTMENTAL SEN
IORITY SYSTEMS AS OPPOSED TO PLANTWIDE
APPLICATION OF SENIORITY: AS VIEWED BY
LABOR ARBITRATORS AND STATISTICIANS (A
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PRINCIPLES EX
PRESSED IN SELECTED ARBITRATION CASES
AND TEXTS IN THIS VOLUME AND BUREAU
OF LABOR STATISTICS BULLETINS 1425 SE
RIES)
Labor arbitrators have, over the past 30 years, evolved
a body of principles in interpreting and applying senior
ity provisions in union contracts, filling gaps and omis
sions in them, and deciding in interest arbitration cases
what the seniority rules should be in union contracts. A
representative selection of arbitration cases and texts
expressing those principles are included in this volume;
references to them as numbered in the Table of Contents
herein are indicated by superscript numbers in this sum
mary.
Likewise Bulletins of the USDL Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics analyzing major collective bargaining agreements
(1425 series) express certain inductive conclusions about
the reasons why different types of seniority systems are
characteristically found associated with various sizes and
compositions of work forces.
Such principles are properly to be considered in deter
mining, under the controlling Supreme Court’s decisions,
whether the seniority system adopted by Pullman-Stand
ard and the United Steelworkers is bona fide. Those
decisions establish that what is customary and usual in
the industry is an important element in determining
bona Sides. Hence, in addition to studying empirically
the seniority systems of railroad equipment manufac
322
turers, an inquiry into the rational basis of different
seniority systems as articulated by those whose business
it is to ascertain it, is relevant to ascertaining the bona-
fides of the Pullman seniority system.
The seniority clause of a collective bargaining agree
ment is the “ Union’s clause” ; 6 that is, it confers no
advantage whatsoever upon management. Without it,
management can layoff, recall, promote, hire or discharge
governed only by pure self-interest and legal limitations.
Thus a seniority clause is demanded by the Union, not
by management; management’s self-interest obviously re
quires that it minimize the impact of a seniority system
on efficiency and profitability of the business.
“ For purposes of efficiency and to minimize disrup
tions, most employers prefer to confine promotions,
at least initially, within small units and jobs calling
for identical or closely related skills; most unions
prefer broader units permitting a wider range of
promotions.” BLS Bulletin 1425-11, Major Collec
tive Bargaining Agreements: Seniority in Promo
tion and Transfer Provisions (1970) 11.
“ The Company’s chief interest in the seniority issue
is to insure against more years of service being con
sidered of more importance than skill, ability, ini
tiative, physical fitness, etc.; its chief interest is the
question of what units are separate for seniority
purposes is to insure proved ability to perform the
very job in question. If those interests of the com
pany are properly protected, it would appear that
the [seniority unit] should be a matter primarily
of what the employees themselves desire.3
“ The interest of the Union in thus protecting . . .
the members of the bargaining unit . . . come into
conflict with the management’s desire to have the
most skilled and knowledgeable employees. . . . ” 8
323
Where the work performed in different departments
or jobs is distinct and the skills not interchangeable,
management regards plant wide seniority to be unwork
able and destructive of efficiency.1 Where prolonged
training on new jobs is required efficiency must suffer.1
The union characteristically does not like it when a
senior employee is laid off in one department while
juniors continue working in others.1 On the other hand,
it is true that opposite inclinations may be felt both by
management and employees.
“ (1) Employers may want to extend eligibility to
other groups if qualified employees are not available
in the specified unit, and (2) many workers, par
ticularly those with lesser seniority, support a pro
motion policy restricting applicants from outside
units.” BLS Bulletin 1425-11, p. 11.
In layoffs, department employees may resent displace
ment of one of their number of an outsider. Particu
larly where a seniority system has been long in effect,
resistance to change may be strong among employees,
who fear loss of their vested status or niche in the or
ganization. Narrow seniority units may also help sup
port union claims to exclusive work assignment rights.6
Consequently, the balance typically and usually struck
between these competing interests, is to adopt seniority
units narrower than plant wide, such as job classifica
tion, occupational group of classifications, line of pro
gression, craft, or departmental units, where employees
or skills are not readily interchangeable without loss of
efficiency.1'2-6 Where the work force is essentially homo
geneous, a broader seniority grouping as plant wide,
company wide or multi-company is more usual.
Geographical separation or even scattering of employ
ees are not particularly significant in deciding whether
employees should be grouped together in a seniority unit;
324
interchangeability of skills and impact on efficiency if so
grouped, are the relevant considerations in deciding a
dispute over whether a number of employees constitute
one or two departments, where the contract is not ex
plicit.3'4 Likewise, in interpreting ambiguous contractual
provisions involving questions of inter-departmental
transfers.5
These principles are applied by arbitrators in resolv
ing the uncertainty in a union contract when it fails—
. to indicate clearly whether the seniority
shall be plant-wide or on a departmental or job
basis. Here the character of the business may fur
nish a determining index. If there are several jobs
involving greatly varying skills in a situation where
there is great likelihood that people of one skill may
be needed at times when others are not, the conclu
sion that the seniority was intended to be on a de
partmental or skill classification basis may be justi
fied. On the contrary, if there is virtually no work
usually classified as skilled within the plant, the
conclusion may well be that seniority should be rec
ognized on a plant-wide basis. [If the agreement is
not clear] the nature of the business and past prac
tice may be the guiding lights.” 7
Over half of the major collective bargaining agree
ments, and over half the employees, covered in the BLS
study of “ Seniority in Promotion and Transfer Provi
sions,” Bulletin No. 1425-11 (1970) had departmental
or more restrictive seniority units (Ibidem, p. 12).
325
COMPANY EX. 24
PERTINENT EXCERPTS RELATING TO DEPART
MENTAL SENIORITY SYSTEMS— FROM SELECT
ED ARTICLES IN MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BU
REAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, 1938-1955 * * *
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT EXCERPTS RELAT
ING TO DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY SYSTEMS,
SELECTED ARTICLES IN MONTHLY LABOR RE
VIEW, USDL, 1938-1955
The study entitled “ Seniority Provisions in Collective
Agreements” , Monthly Labor Review, December, 1938,
120, 1252-53, observed that plant wide seniority systems
were “ most prevalent in shops in which all employees
follow the same craft or in plants where the jobs are
more or less interchangeable.” It further pointed out
that—
“ In larger establishments where operations are
more varied, it is common to establish separate lists
on departmental lines or according to job specifica
tions. Thus, only workers doing the same type of
work, or engaged in the same industrial processes,
are considered to be in competition when jobs are
filled or promotions made. This form of seniority
limits the workers to be considered to those most
likely to be fitted for the jobs involved.”
Thus the variables associated with departmental seniority
systems were large size and non-interchangeable skills.
Small plants and ones with work forces having similar
skills were more likely to have plant-wide seniority
systems.
The Study of “ Workers’ Attitudes on Work Sharing
and Lay-Off Policies in a Manufacturing Firm,” Monthly
Labor Review, January, 1939, 47, 49, pointed out that
departmental seniority systems were favored sometimes
by employee attitudes of resentment of an outsider’s dis
placing or bumping an employee in a given department.
The study of “ Collective Bargaining by United Rub
ber Workers,” Monthly Labor Review, September, 1939,
604, 612-13, based on 54 Rubber Workers contracts in
11 states, found that:
“ In a majority of the agreements, including those
covering all of the larger companies, departmental
seniority is the determining factor in selecting em
ployees for transfer, promotion, lay-offs, and rehire.”
The study of “Union Agreements in Aircraft Manu
facture,” Monthly Labor Review, August, 1940, 290, 295-
96, based on 12 contracts filed with the Bureau of Labor
Statistics found:
“Eleven of the twelve agreements contain seniority
provisions. Six of them provide for seniority on a
departmental basis, while three establish plant-wide
seniority and one, seniority within job classifica
tions.”
The study of “Union Agreements in Shipbuilding,”
Monthly Labor Review, September, 1940, 597, 605-06,
based on 28 contracts filed with the BLS, found:
“All of the agreements, except seven signed by
craft unions [which presumably operated hiring halls
or referral systems typical of such unions], give some
recognition to seniority. In all cases seniority is on
an occupational or departmental basis.”
The article entitled “ Contract Clauses on Seniority as
a Factor in Layoffs,” 78 Monthly Labor Review 766,
767-69 (July, 1955) says in pertinent part:
“ The seniority unit within which employees are
ranked in order of retention is generally determined
by the requirements of plant operation. A broad sen
326
327
iority basis, e.g., plantwide, may be deemed appropri
ate where occupations within the plant are fairly
uniform or are readily learned. Where a wide range
of operations and skills is required to manufacture
a product, the workers who compose a single produc
tion line, a department, or a job classification may
be grouped in a seniority unit.”
In short, official government studies show that through
out the period of formation of the Pullman-Steelworkers
seniority system, similar systems were prevalent in in
dustries of comparable size and variety of skills, through
out the country, including the rubber industry, aircraft
manufacture, and shipbuilding. They also show that the
larger the plant and the more varied the requisite skills,
the more prevalent it was for departmental or narrower
(occupational or job classification, craft or line of pro
gression) seniority units to be agreed to; and that the
type of system was “ generally determined by the require
ments of plant operation.”
328
I N D E X
Page
“Seniority Provisions in Collective Agreements*’, MLR
December, 1938, 1250 ------ ------------------------ ---------- 1
“Workers’ Attitudes in Work Sharing and Lay-Off
Policies in a Manufacturing Firm” , MLR, January,
1939, 47 .............................. - ................... .......... ........ 12
“Collective Bargaining by United Rubber Workers” ,
MLR, September, 1939, 604 .......... .......................... 15
“Union Agreements in Aircraft Manufacture” , MLR,
August, 1940, 290 ______________ ____ __________ 19
“Union Agreements in Shipbuilding” , MLR, Septem
ber, 1940, 597 ......................................... ...... ............. 22
“ Contract Clauses on Seniority as a Factor in Layoffs” ,
78 MLR 766 (July, 1955) ....................... ........ ......... 27
329
COMPANY EX. 25
MASTER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
A m e r ic a n Ca r a n d F o u n d r y D iv isio n
ACF I n d u s t r ie s , I n c o r p o r a t e d
a n d
U n it e d S t e e l w o r k e r s of A m e r ic a
November 4, 1965
WITH
S t . C h a r l e s P l a n t S u p p l e m e n t
ST. CHARLES PLANT
EXHIBIT “A”
Department No. Department Name
102 Shear and Punch
103 Underframe
104 Steel Assembly
105 Steel Erection
106 Welding
107 Wheel and Axle
108 Iron Machine Shop
109 Blacksmith
110 Pulpwood Car Assembly
112 Steel Cabinet
118 Cabinet Mill
114 Sheet Metal
115 Coach Erection
116 Passenger Electric
117 Pipe
118 Finish
119 Paint
120 Trimming
121 Upholstering
330
122
131
140
141
142
144
148
152
154
156
157
162
219
502
504
505
514
516
519
561
Wood Cabinet
Template and Pattern
Machine Maintenance
Building’s and Yard
Shop Electric
Power Plant
Building Service
Finish Stores
Raw Stores
Tool and Parts Control
Material Transport
Loft
Resident-Maintenance
Aircraft Machine and Fabrication
Aircraft Tooling
Aircraft Assembly
Heat Treat and Hand Form
Aircraft Electrical
Anodize and Paint
Inspection
SUM MARY OF SEN IORITY PROVISION S IN A L L COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEM ENTS
ON FILE W ITH UNITED STATES D EPARTM EN T OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
IN INDUSTRIES IN STANDARD IN DU STRIAL CLASSIFICATION GROUP NO. 374 (RAILRO AD EQUIPM ENT)
(E XC E P T PU LLM AN -STAN DARD )
Employer Location Union Dates Brief Description o f Seniority System
Evans Products Co. Plymouth, Mich. USW 9 /1 /6 5 HYBRID OF P LA N T, CLASSIFICATION AND
D EPARTM EN T SEN IORITY *
ACF Hamilton, W . Y a.)
Milton, Pa. )
St. Charles, Mo. )
USW 11/4/65 D EPARTM EN TAL OR BY UNITS TH EREOF
GATX East Chicago, 111.)
Plants 1 and 2 )
Sharon, Pa. )
Argentine, Kans. )
West Colton, CA )
Hearne, Texas )
W ay cross, Ga. )
USW 9/15 /71 DEPARTM EN T OR BY UNITS TH EREOF
Youngstown Steel Door Co. Youngstown, Ohio USW 10/1/71 D E PARTM EN TAL
ACF East St. Louis, 111.)
Milton, Pa. )
Red House, W. V a.)
USW 3/5 /7 2
PL A N T W IDE IN LAYO FFS AND RECALLS, Provided
Employee has ability to do the work. P L A N T W IDE IN
FILLIN G VACANCIES, Provided Employee can qualify
in the new Classification during a 30-day trial period,
during which he is paid at his old rate.
Westinghouse A ir Brake
Division, Office &
Technical Employees
Wilmerding, Pa. Independent 11/1/72 “ SECTION” or “ PA Y R O L L N UM BER” (evidently
means Occupational or Classification Basis)
Westinghouse A ir Brake
Division, P & M
Wilmerding, Pa. UE Local 610 11/1 /72 “ SECTION” (evidently means departmental or subunit
thereof)
New York A ir Brake Co. Watertown, N Y. Molders Local 78 2/14 /73 DEPA RTM EN TA L
Greenville Steel Car Co. Greenville, Pa. U AW Local 1653 4/19 /73 DEPARTM EN TAL
Winder Transportation
Systems, Inc.
W inder, Ga. IAM Lodge 2 5 /1 /7 4 OCCUPATIONAL—-Departmental preference in
promotions
* Plant-Wide seniority for 10 designated “ Basic Jobs” , i.e„ unskilled. All vacancies in “ Non-Basic” (semi-skilled and skilled) jobs filled first by
employees having certain minimum experience in those jobs. Where such experienced employees not available, departmental seniority applies
in filling temporary (2 weeks or less) vacancies in Non-Basic jobs and in filling permanent vacancies in Non-Basic jobs plant-wide seniority
applies provided senior bidder can do the available work in the classification, as demonstrated by a 5-day trial period— which is not a training
period.
CO
M
PAN
Y EX. 26—
FIRST D
O
CU
M
EN
T
332
COMPANY EX. 26—SECOND DOCUMENT
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
EVANS PRODUCTS COMPANY
AND
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA
September 1, 1965
* * * *
Section 4. There shall be one (1) Steward for each
shift in the following departments except as otherwise
indicated:
Dept. 10— Machine Shop.
Dept. 21— Loading Equipment— Two (2) Stewards.
Dept. 21— Car Building & Installation—-Two (2)
Stewards.
Dept. 29 and 30 combined— Shears and Press Room.
Dept. 31— Spot Welding.
Dept. 32— Paint.
Dept. 33— Final Assembly.
Dept. 40— Tool Room.
Dept. 41-1— Receiving.
Dept. 41-2— Stock Room— Two (2) Stewards (one
Steward from among employees working
indoors and the other from among em
ployees working outdoors).
Dept. 41-3— Lift Truck Operations.
Dept. 42— Inspection.
333
Dept. 45— Shipping.
Dept. 46 and 195— combined.
Dept. 48— Maintenance— Two (2) Stewards (one
from among General Maintenance and the
other from among Sweepers and General
Workers).
Dept. 49— Tool Crib.
Dept. 66— Experimental.
334
COMPANY EX. 26—THIRD DOCUMENT
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
GREENVILLE STEEL CAR COMPANY
AND
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS
OF AMERICA
Local Union No. 1653
Greenville, Pennsylvania
April 19, 1973
To
April 19, 1976
[UNION BUG]
* * * *
Section 12
a. The following is a list of the separate departmental
seniority rosters. An employee’s departmental sen
iority shall be based upon his length of continuous
service within a recognized department:
(1) Wheel, Axle and Truck Shop
(2) Crane Operators
(3) Electrical Maintenance
(4) Erection Shop
(5) Forge Shop
335
(6) Hook-on
(7) Tool & Die Department
(8) Die Yard
(9) Mechanical, Tool Room and Power House (Mill
wrights)
(10) Paint Department
(11) Pattern and Template Shop
(12) Pipe Department
(13) Fabrication Department
(14) Stores Department
(15) Switching
(16) Property Department
(17) Plant Janitors
DEPARTMENTS BARGAINING UNITS, AND SENIORITY SYSTEMS AT PULLMAN BESSEMER PLANT,
1941 -PRESENT. COMPANY DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 27.
V e tia g L io t F l i i i U n in [AM IBEW Secerb- J « * e l, >41 M a r .1, ’4 ? t W l / 4 9 J « « . I , ’fO f t b . l / S i I , 'J X J m . e l / 5 3 J u n e 1/ 5 + S e p t . t / 5 4 H P f e j t « t
I 9 4 t Cahtraefs *4 2 , C e r t '* J u n '44 '4 4
- Hooje<D‘
W elling 0 A M )- W eMUg 0»)
W f c A O A M ) - W * A CD)
A BPS C IA M )-A 5 P S C D )
M * in t CO)
Ruin*i a»
Steel £V«c6 d (~ Steal E CO)
Vo.l iteomfe)-
S t« d C W M tr-S te e l C CO) -
Paint -------Paint (0 ) —
T (t>) —
Pi**t fo fca u -p fa t p Co) —
StefMrfiwtfnlerce- S upcrm t fj>) —
- — 7 * w f <#ts ( 0) —
W « « J £ < ie t i * n - W ood E CO ) —
S t * r € f «<— M « s t S t r r r n ( t ) ) —
^ T r K /T * * < t e
s t e d S fo re s C b )-S t t f l M ( * t
\
1 H l t f r a r m -
1
. . ._______________________________ _ _ /
—
........... ______________ _ /
>) PI a t P ^ >
P»«*Cr- HoH « C O )“
Mamt (lAM)~
OicT CI AM) -
Welding CO) -
W * A CD) -
M»lnt ( D ) ------------------
RailroadCD)-- ---------
Bdter HWkCo)
D A T ( D ) ------------------------
P r« S S C D ) ---------------------------- -
PSSCD) — .................*
S tee l EC O ) ------------------------
M t u S t « r « s ( o ) ~
> T r k / T r » c V ( 0 ) ^
"Z S te e l S tove»(o ) — 'NT
C ^ n e SerCo) - S t e e l M is a C O ) -
Steel C. CO)-----
P « t /5 h p 5 T C D )~ —
P lan t P r * t ( 0) -----
Janitors (0)--
Template CO) —
Wood E r ie CD) —
Mi*e Stottsto) —
M o h C<»n< f O ) -----
S t e t i S to re s 0 > ) —
S t e e l M i te ( 0 ) —
lu m b e r Y a r d — L u m b S tbv 'e jC D )------------------------------------------------------------L « m k S t o * t S ( b ) —--------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------- l u m b e r Y < j(® )-LM H »b SCwe^CD) '
W o o d M i l l — N W M i l l ( D ) ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------- W o o d M . - I K o ) ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -- W o o d M . l t f p ) -----------------------------
F o r g e •-------------F o r g e ( D ) -----------------------------------------------------------------F o r g e ( O ) --------------------■:-------------------------------------------- ■— ...........— - ------------------------------------------------------------------ — ---------------------------------------------- — F o r g e ( p ) — - ----------- —
T -1 -c K ----- -- T ru c k ( 0 ) ■— ----------------- ------------------------- T r u c k ( o ) ------------------------------------ ---------- --------------------------------------- - ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------- T e u c K ( D ) --------------------------
K e y : ( E ) * IBEW B a r jv n it ig R w it; (1 A M )- I A M B a V g n ln iw ^ U n i t ; ( D ) * U S W U n it , O ff» T tm e n ta l S e n io r i t y ; ( o ) = U S W U n it , O ccu p a tio n a l S e n i o r i t y ,
337
DEPOSITIONS INTRODUCED AT 1978 TRIAL
DEPOSITION OF
JOHNNY JOSEPH MAUTMAN HERRING
[10] Q All right. The contract will show that in 1941,
the National Labor Relations Board certified bargaining
unit for the machinists, which included the production
and maintenance welders.
I believe you came to work there the next year; is
that correct ?
A That’s right. In 1942.
Q That’s correct.
Now, the contract further shows that on June 14, 1944,
the machinists union, and the Steelworkers Union, made
an agreement whereby the welders and certain other em
ployees who were then in the machinist department would
become members of the Steelworkers bargaining unit.
Do you recall that agreement?
A Yeah, but I want to put you straight there.
Q 0. K. Would you tell me about that?
A Now, the time you are talking about, you know,
we were striking, might not be every month, but some
times two or three times a day and two or three times
a month.
Q Now, who was striking at that time?
A We were trying to get organized, get us a [11]
union.
MR. FALKENBERRY: He is asking you what group
of people you are talking about, Mr. Herring.
A I’m talking about the P and M workers.
Q All right.
A And then when we organized and all, well, then we
come up here to Birmingham and in the First National
Bank Building, Pullman owned or had leased one floor
down there, and Bill Sleeman, he was plant manager,
and we was all down there. They had been coming across
338
our picket line and the machinists then got down there,
and we said this, that, and the other, and said, well, we
are going to take who we want, not what you want to
give us.
Q Who did you tell it to?
A Told them to the boss that was around the table
with us. And said, well, what do you want then? We
told them we would take everyone excusing the mill
wrights. If you want me to tell you exactly what we
said, I can tell you.
Q All right. What did you say?
A I said we didn’t want them scabbing son-of-a-
bitches, they come across our picket line.
[12] Q All right.
A And then we left out of that First National Bank
and went to the Post Office, and old Judge, Federal
Judge in there with us, old man Sleeman and Johnson
was doing a little whispering going on, and old Judge
told them, said, listen, you whisper out loud because I’m
the man going to make the decision today, and I want
to hear what’s going on. And that’s when we took who
we wanted and give them the rest of them.
* * * *
339
DEPOSITION OF COLON V. CLEMONS
* * * *
[4] COLON V. CLEMONS,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows :
EXAMINATION BY MM. CLEMON:
Q Mr. Clemon, will you state your full name?
A Colon V. Clemons.
Q And what is your address?
A 3217 Circle Drive, Hueytown.
Q Where are you employed?
A Pullman-Standard, Bessemer.
Q And what is your position at Pullman-Standard?
[5] A Department head, die and tool.
Q That’s the die and tool I AM Department?
A That’s right.
Q How long have you been department head?
A Eight years.
Q How long have you worked in the die and tool
department?
A Since May of ’41.
Q What was your position before you became head
of the department ?
A I started off laboring, sweeping the floor, prog
ressed ot craneman and machinist.
Q All right. Now, Mr. Clemon, when you first came
into the die and tool department, in May of ’41, there
was no union, was there?
A That’s right.
Q Did you participate in the organizing effort?
A I joined when they formed the union.
Q All right. Did you join after the union had been
certified in the latter part of ’41?
A I think so. As I recall, it was September of ’41
when they formed the union and I joined at that time.
[6] Q Were there any black members in the union
at that time?
A Not at that time, no, sir. Could have been, I didn’t
know about it.
Q Did you go to any of the union meetings?
A Yes, I went to one or two meetings.
Q Did you see any blacks there?
A I don’t recall.
Q Do you ever recall seeing any?
A No.
Q Were you familiar with the fact that the truck
department was initially included in the IAM bargaining
unit at Pullman?
A No. See, it was formed in September, as I recall,
and I went off, was laid off April of ’42 and went into
World War II, and was gone for three and a half years
and didn’t return until ’46.
Q You say you left in April of ’42?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. There is a letter dated December 19,
1941. You were in the die and tool department there,
weren’t you?
[7] A That’s right.
Q There is a letter signed by Mr. Bumgardner. Did
you know him?
A Yes. Bumgardner, yes, sir. He was business
agent.
Q Yes. All right. He signed a letter along with
Representative of the Steelworkers organizing committee,
which, among other things, transfers the truck shop
from the IAM unit into the Steelworkers unit. Were
you familiar with that?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that at that time the employees
in the truck shop were black?
A No, I don’t recall that.
341
Q You were familiar with the truck builders, weren’t
you?
A Yes, sir.
Q They were black?
A Yes, sir.
842
DEPOSITION OF CLYDE A. ROBERTSON
* * * *
[5] CLYDE A. ROBERTSON,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. CLEMON:
Q Mr. Robertson, would you state, for the record,
your full name?
A Clyde A. Robertson, R-o-b-e-r-t-s-o-n.
Q And you are employed by Pullman-Standard?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what is your position with Pullman-Standard?
[6] A Contract compliance officer.
Q And what does that entail?
A Well, it’s the handling and overseeing of the Civil
Rights activities, Affirmative Action Program; basically,
that’s it.
Q O.K. Mr. Robertson, you worked with the lawyers
for the company in both answering the interrogatories,
which the plaintiff filed to the company, and in respond
ing to plaintiff’s request for production, did you not?
A That’s correct.
* * * *
[12] Q All right. Mr. Robertson, in your study of
company records, in responding to our request for pro
duction, and in answer to our interrogatories, did you
come across any documents which reflect any negotia
tions between the company and the Steelworkers Union,
with respect to the creation of a separate seniority list
or department for the boiler house?
[13] A Nothing, no negotiations, no, sir.
Q All right. Is it also true with respect to inspection?
A Yes, uh huh.
343
Q The janitor’s department?
A Yes.
Q Mobile crane? Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The creation or merger of the shipping track with
the paint department?
A That’s correct, nothing to show negotiations or
anything like that.
Q Also true with respect to the plant protection de
partment?
A That’s correct.
Q And the railroad department?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the steel miscellaneous department?
A Yes.
Q Well, I take that back.
I believe there is one document or maybe two which
shows that there was agreement between the company
and the union to create steel miscellaneous [14] depart
ment out of, or to carve it out of steel storage depart
ment?
A I think those were—
Q Those were supplied to me?
A Yes.
* * * *
[15] Q All right. Do you recall whether there was
any negotiations, or have you seen any records reflect
ing any negotiations with respect to the creation of the
truck and tractor department in the first place?
A No.
Q Do the records that you have seen indicate what
disposition was made of the superintendents department?
[16] A No. No records other than the people that
were in the superintendents department went into other
departments, like the inspection people that were in
there became part, later on in later years, part of the
344
inspection department, I can’t recall the other people
in that department.
# * * *
[20] O.K. You do know that within two months after
the IAM was certified, with the truck shop included in
the bargaining unit, that the IAM had arranged with the
Steelworkers to transfer the truck shop from the IAM
to the Steelworkers?
A No. I don’t recall that.
Q You don’t recall that?
A No.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. demon, there have been a great
number of documents in this case and would be more
people that just Mr. Robertson that pulled them. In
fact, I pulled a number of them myself, so Mr. Robert
son might not have seen all of the documents and maybe
other documents, although I’m certainly not saying there
are any documents of the nature you are suggesting.
Q All right,
A Now, I can’t recall everything that I saw, [21]
let alone some of it that I may not have seen.
Q And at one time the boiler house, railroad, power
house employees were all carried on maintenance CIO
seniority list, were they not?
A That’s correct.
Q And, therefore, under a departmental seniority sys
tem, employees in the maintenance department, black and
white alike, would have been able to move up to these
jobs in power house, boiler house, railroad; is that not
correct?
A Under a straight departmental seniority system.
[22] Q Which is what you now have at Pullman?
A Yes, by and large, yes.
Q Now, the effect of creating these new departments
or cavring out these new departments from maintenance
345
CIO was to create some department into which em
ployees otherwise eligible to get certain jobs as power
house operators, would no longer have a right to get
those jobs; is that not correct?
A You are asking me if that’s what was done to
take people’s rights away, I don’t know what was done.
Q No. I’m not asking you for the motivation, Mr.
Robertson; I’m asking you for the effect.
When the power house jobs were taken out of main
tenance CIO and placed in a separate department, did
that not mean that some person, and I’m particularly
interested in the blacks who were in maintenance CIO,
who might otherwise have been entitled to jobs in the
power house, no longer had a right to get those jobs?
A Not in the same way had they been in the main
tenance department.
Q They would have to have transferred to the [23]
power house in order to—
A Right.
Q And there was no right of transfer. They could
request it and the company could grant it if it saw fit?
A That’s correct.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. demon, are you speaking now
without reference to the Affirmative Action Agreement?
MR. CLEMON: Right. I’m speaking now about
things a little prior to 1965.
346
Civil Action Number 71-P-0955-S
Louis S w i n t , et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d , A Division of Pullman, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS
Come now the plaintiffs in the above cause and move
this Court, pursuant to Rule 201(b) (d) and (f) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, to take judicial notice of the
following facts:
1. In the case of Terrell, et al. vs. U.S. Pipe and
Foundry, et al., No. 27-887-P, N.D. Ala., presently pend
ing before this Court, the defendant International Asso
ciation of Machinists (“ IAM” ) stated that until 1948,
the IAM Ritual contained a clause that the [members]
would propose for membership only “qualified white can
didates.” See Answers of IAM to Plaintiffs’ Interrog
atories No. 7, filed March 4, 1974, a certified copy of
which is attached hereto.
2. In the same case, the defendant International As
sociation of Machinists stated that its 1940 bargaining
unit at United States Pipe and Foundry Company’s plant
located in Bessemer, Alabama, consisted of “ machinists,
apprentice machinists, toolmen, crane hookers, blacksmith
shop employees, welders, apprentice welders and welders’
helpers.” Id., Answer to Interrogatory No. 1; copy at
tached hereto.
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, plaintiffs pray
that the Court will take judicial notice of the said facts.
IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT
FOR TH E N O RTH ERN D ISTRICT OF A LA B A M A
SOUTH ERN DIVISION
347
Case No. 72-887
Joseph Terrell, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States P ipe & Foundry Company, et al.,
Defendants.
Mar. 4, 1974
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
Comes now the defendant, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and
Lodge 359 (hereinafter the “ Grand Lodge” or the “ In
ternational” ) and for Answer to the plaintiff’s Interroga
tories says as follows:
1. Yes, both are separate labor organizations. The
I.A.M. was certified as the bargaining representative in
1940 for “ machinists, apprentice machinists, toolmen,
crane hookers, blacksmith shop employees, welders, ap
prentice welders and welder’s helpers.”
2. John R. Tucker (white)
District Lodge Business Agent, I.A.M.
110 West 13th Street
Anniston, Alabama 36201
Represents L.U. at 3rd step of grievance procedure.
Represents L.U. in negotiations.
M. C. Hosmer, President (white)
Route 1, Box 179
McCalla, Alabama 35111
IN TH E U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TH E N O RTH ERN DISTRICT OF A LA B A M A
SOUTHERN DIVISION
348
7. Neither the Constitution nor the By Laws have
ever excluded blacks or members of any minority race.
Prior to 1948 the Ritual did contain a clause stating that
the applicant would propose for membership only “quali
fied white candidates.” This was dropped in 1948. There
have been no such qualifications since.
8. A. The Ritual of the I.A.M.
B. Unknown. Probably 1888.
C. 1948.
* * *
11. The Local has never refused to accept a black
employee’s application for membership.
* * * *
(c) Membership has not been limited to whites
only. No blacks were assigned to the I.A.M. bargaining
unit until 1969.
* # * *
A true copy of pages 1-3 of Defts’ Answers to Plfts’
interrogatories total of 7 pages with exhibits)
J a m e s E. V a n d e r g r if t
Clerk
United States District Court
Northern District of Alabama
349
Civil Action No. 72-887
Joseph Terrell, Jr., Albert Mason, Marcus Oakes,
Sam Walker, Johnny Long, Thomas Green, Wal
ter Dudley, each individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Pipe and Foundry Company, a cor
poration; United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL-
CIO, an unincorporated association; Local 2140,
United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL-CIO, an un
incorporated association; International Molders and
Allied Workers Union, an unincorporated associa
tion ; Local 342, International Molders and Allied
Workers Union, an unincorporated association; Pat
ternmakers League of North America, AFL, an
unincorporated association; Patternmakers Associa
tion of Birmingham, an unincorporated association;
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, an unincorporated association;
Lodge 359, International Association of Machin
ists and Aerospace Workers, an unincorporated asso
ciation ; Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Black
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, an unincorporated
association; Local 583, Brotherhood of Boilermak
ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, an unin
corporated association; International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, an unincorporated associa
tion; Local 136, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, an unincorporated association,
Defendants.
IN THE U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE N ORTH ERN DISTRICT OF A LA B A M A
BIRM INGH AM DIVISION
Dec. 7, 1973
350
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANT UNIONS
4?- * * *
7. State whether the Constitution or By-Laws of the
International Machinists and Aerospace Workers have
ever contained provisions excluding persons or limiting
or qualifying membership on the basis of race or color.
8. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 7 is affirmative,
state:
(a) The document in which the provision is or was
contained, its precise location and its custodian;
(b) the date of its original enactment or exercise;
(c) the date of its expiration or repeal, if any;
* * * *
11. State whether Local 359 or any other Local char
tered by the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers at U.S. Pipe . . . (Interrogatory
continued on next page of document, but that page is not
in the record].