Eaton v. Courtaulds of North America, Inc. Appendix

    ►

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 76-2457

i )

i

t

FREDDIE EATON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v s .

COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

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

Southern Division

A P P E N D I X

JAMES U. BLACKSHER 
Crawford, Blacksher, Figures 
& Brown

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603
JACK GREENBERG 
0. PETER SHERWOOD 

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellants

J



I N D E X
Page(s)

Docket Sheet, Civil Action No. 6768-71-P la
Docket Sheet, Civil Action No. 6648-71-P 11a
Complaint 19a
Amended Complaint 44a
Answer of Defendant Textile Workers Union 
of America 71a

Answer of Defendant Local 1465 73a
Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Donald C. Smith 74a
Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories to Defendant 
Courtaulds 111a

Joint Pretrial Document 120a
Pretrial Document of Defendant TWUA 134a
Order on Pretrial Hearing 137a
Courtaulds' Answers to Plaintiffs' First 
Interrogatories 141a

Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories to 
Defendant Courtaulds 149a

Amended Order of Consolidation and Definition 
of Class 155a

Correction of Class Definition and Order on 
Notice 160a

Answers of Defendant Courtaulds to Plaintiffs' 
Second Interrogatories 167a

Answer of Defendant Courtaulds 171a
Settlement Agreement 176a
Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition, to 
Approve Settlement, and to Authorize Notice 
to Class 196a

-i-



Page(s)

First Order 199a
Notice to Class 201a
Order Approving Settlement Agreement 206a
Courtaulds' Objection to Proposed Method 
of Distributing Back Pay 210a

Order Sustaining Courtaulds' Objections 219a
Order on Method of Distributing Back Pay 221a
Order Finally Approving Method of Distributing 
Back Pay 233a

Motion for Declaration of Rights and 
Enforcement of Decree 239a
Order Denying Motion for Declaration of 
Rights and Enforcement of Decree 247a

Notice of Appeal 255a
Article XI (Seniority) of 1970 Labor Contract 256a
Appendix A (Wage Plan) of 1970 Labor Contract 268a
Appendix B (Lines of Progression) to 1970 
Labor Contract 293a
October 18, 1968 Merger of Laborer and 
Saundry Operator Classification 296a

Brock Letter dated July 14, 1975 298a
Arbitration Award 300a
Blacksher Letter dated July 24, 1975 311a
Brock Letter dated July 24, 1975 315a
Courtaulds Answer to Eaton and Sullivan Grievance 321a
Grievance of Eaton and Sullivan 322a
Courtaulds Answer to Thicklin Grievance 323a
Thicklin Grievance 324a

-ii-



Seniority List dated January 11, 1973 
Lines of Progression on October 26, 1973 
Blacksher Letter dated August 4, 1975

Page(s)

325a
338a
341a

-iii-

*



- ' - • ; CIVIL DOCKET 
SITED STATE’S DISTRICT COURT

i vjii r nL i

. Jury .demand, date:

n m u  0-7- / ^

F o rav N o t 106 A R ev.

«JuP6£ /If 7" 7")nf)*J
SET ' j)R .TRIAL
ON: !_!'$' -____________

T I T L E  O F  C A SE A T T O R N E Y S

FREDDIE EATON, ALPHONSE CREAGH, 
WARREN EATON, LEVON OHASTON,
LAMAR HILL, WILLIE SULLIVAN, 
LAWSON HANNEY, WILLIE STALLWORTH, 
LEROY SIMS, HERMAN BLACKMAN, EARL 
LEE EATON, WILLIE GOODWIN and 
ROOSEVELT HURD, individually 
and on behalf of others similarly 
situated,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

COURTAULDS OP NORTH AMERICA, 
INCORPORATED; TEXTILE WORKERS UNION 
OF .AMERICA; and LOCAL 1465, TEXTILE 
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. 6768-7I-P

May 10, 1971- Suit for declaratory judg­
ment, preliminary & permanent injunction 
restraining defendants from racial dis­
crimination in employment.

- For plaintiff:
A. J. COOPER, JR. and JAMES U . " 

--FRANKHS-'P-IELDS .SMITH- BLACKSHER 
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

"JACK GREENBERG 
-WILLIAM ROBINSON - - - - - -  -
— SYLVBV-BR5W------------
Suite 2030, 10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

/

Attorney for Defendant, Textile Worker 
Union of America, AFL-CIO:

-Benj. L. Erdreich,
Suite 201 - 409 North 21st St.

^TNAINTERV§NTION FRISSON, ET
DONALD M. BRISKMAN, 257 St." Anthony St 

For defendant: Mobile, Ala., 36603
Attorney for Local 1465, Textile Work­
ers Union of America:

— Otto E. Simon, ' , ;
1010 Van Antwerp Bldg 
Mobile, Ala. 36602

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
-W. L. Williams, Jr.
Field Attorney 
2121 8th Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

APPLICANTS IN INTERVENTION JOHN FOSTER, 
ET AL:
IRVIN J. LANGFORD, P. 0. Box 1643, 
Mobile. Ala., 36601

S T A T IS T IC A L  R E C O R D C O ST S
n a m e  o r

R E C E IP T  N O .
D IS B .

Vern5 mailed

i. 6-mailed 

.lin of Action:

lion arose at:
DEP: OF: JOHN A.
70oST E M T ? m 0 - D30-72
■ OF:FREDDIE EATON, 
LIAM GOODWIN. jAm eL d

Clerk

Marshal 

Docket fee 

Witness fees 

Depositions

SMITH,

15

328

00 5-11-
For

1, #36,751
COURTAULDS OF NORTH

■PAUI)
IIARk
Post

W. BROCK cnd
ELL E • COAi E , J" 1.

4o

Office Boj|

W4RREN EATON 
RL EATON KitEA

of DONALD C. SM
DONALD T. Me CAY t
WI LLIE STALL!
HIRMAN BLACK 
RC OSEVELT HU D , LAMAR

123 
'ANf ”
10-3
30-

BTH

ion 2. Crawford

AMEI

-723-30 
3-72 
72 
i74fr2
-23-72

ORTH 10-30-72 
ON, CEVC1 THORNTON,

HILL

ICA: /

LEROY
SIMS,ALPHONSE CREAGK IO-3O-79 _

wiIiLCi j. O’.ci-A, ‘V *

Deputy \Clofk.
.) • * V  •’ A '
If li[,\ ’ ^  ’

a  l;
Vi'lLLISilA J,

jj&i* ■-» i/y viOp

/*-

/



0'
\0

'\
0>

\ 
C7

\ 
j

.’
 

m
m

 
VJ

1 
vj

l 
U

iV
Jl

 
'J

iv
ji

 
o

iv
j

i

•M V

PROCEEDINGS D ate  Ord Judgment
atg£-Ati-10-71 .Complaint filed,

-11-71 Summons issued with 3 copies of s. & c. attached for service on 
defendants,

-13-71 /^mended complaint filed,
-14-71 Summons issued with 3 copies of summons and amended complaint 

attached for service on defendants,
-14-71 Summons returned, executed as to C0URTAU1DS OP NORTH AMERICA, 
-19-71 ' Summons returned, executed as to LOCAL 1465, ETC;,

' Summons returned, executed as to COURTAULDS,
I Summons returned, executed as to LOCAL 1465, ETC.,

-26-71 | Motion filed May 26, 1971, by Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of 
America, for Enlargement of Time to Plead, with Certificate of 
Service

-26-71
i-26-71
i-28-71
5-1-71
-4-71

-7-71
-9-71
-14-71

: 6-14-71

6-16-71i
£-16-71

6-18-71
j
5- 22-71
6- 23-71

6-28-71

r-l4-71
r-l4-71
■■-23-71

Motion to Stay filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Motion to enlarge time to plead filed this date is GRANTED,
Notices of ruling on motion to enlarge time mailed to attorneys,
Motion of defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC. for enlargement 

’of time to plead filed,'
ORDER entered GRANTING motion for enlargement of time filed by 

defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.'on June-1, 1971 (Min. 
Entry No. 29188) - •

Copies of Min. Entry No. 29188 mailed to attorneys of record'/ 
Opposition to motion to stay filed by plaintiffs, ' . -
Summons returned, executed as to TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OP AMERICA, 
Summons returned, executed as to TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OP AMERICA 

of Amended complaint,
Withdrawal of Motion to Stay filed by Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission,
Withdrawal of Motion to Stay is GRANTED, notices of '.'.ruling mailed 

to attorneys Cooper, Simon, Williams and Brock,
Motion to enlarge time to-plead filed by defendant TEXTILE WORKERS 

UNION 0F_ AMERICA,'
Motion to eniarge time to;"plead filed by defendant TEXTILE WORKERS 

UNI0N;'0P'.'AMERICA'on-'JUne-'16i-'1971 is GRANTED; notices-mailed -to •• 
attorneys of record on June 21, 1971, ' "  •

Motion to enlarge time to plead filed by defendant LOCAL 1465, ETC., 
Motion to enlarge time to plead filed by defendant LOCAL 1465, ETC.

on June 22, 1971 is GRANTED; notices mailed to attorneys of record 
Motion for stay filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Motion to stay or dismiss filed by defendant LOCAL 1465, TEXTILE 
WORLERS UNION OF AMERICA, . .

Opposition to motion for stay filed by plaintiff,
Motion for stay, filed by defendant COURTAULD'S OF NORTH AMERICA 

on 6/28/71, DENIED, after argument,
Motion to stay or dismiss, filed by defendant TEXTILE WORKERS 

UNION on July 13, 1971, DENIED, after argument.
Motion to stay or dismiss, filed by defendant LOCAL 1465,etc. on 

July 14, 1971,’ DENIED, after argument.
Notices mailed to all attorneys of record, mpc

(CONTINUED TONEXT PAGE)

2<Z

x'lVVH );y/A

7 /  7.\v:-'

V  \V \ -V7 A * - '. '  j n
...///



CONTINUATION CIVIL ACTION 6648-71v . S  * t-.

:lO A :B «T .'C m i Docket Continuation

2-71

► -71

0-71

,-71

.1-71 

■2-71

51-71

51-71

21-7:

9-71 

L3-7: 
11-73

,£-7l|tf<]
9- 71

i fs
19-71 
.0-71

"1
•9-71I • I

27-71

10-  71

>-72

PROCEEDINGS D ate O rder or 
Ju d gm en t Noted

Motion for enlargement of time within which to answer or otherwise 
plead to the amended complaint filed by defendant, COURTAULDS,

Motion for enlargement of time filed by Courtaulds on 8/2/71
is GRANTED, time extended to Sept. 1, 1971, notice mailed to atty:;

Motion for enlargement of time within which to answer or otherwise 
plead filed by defendant, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,

Motion for enlargement of time within which to answer or otherwise 
plead filed by defendant TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA is 
GRANTED; notices mailed to attorneys of record,

'ANSWER of defendant, LOCAL 1465, with request for additional 30 days 
to file an amended answer

Request for additional 30 days for filing of answer filed by defen­
dant on August 11, 1971 is GRANTED; notices mailed to attorneys 
of record (Defendant LOCAL 1465)

Motion for enlargement of time to answer or otherwise move, filed 
by defendants, Textile Workers Union, of America, AFL-CIO, and
Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of America, ___ •

Motion of defendants filed 8-31-71 for extension of time GRANTED • 
until October 11, 1971. Notices mailed, mpc

iMotion to Dismiss, with brief in support of attached, filed by 
defendant, COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC.,

■ '''ANSWER of defendant TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
. filed, . .

I^ANSWER fo the defendant, Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of Ameri- 
AFL-CIO filed, v

Notices of taking depositions of FREDDIE EATON, HERMAN BLACKMON 
WILLIAM GOODWIN, LAWSON HARVEY, LEROY SIMS, WILLIE STALLWORTH* 
ISIAH DINKINS, JR.,and JOHN PEOPLES filed by plaintiff, 3

otice of filing of affidavit of DONALD C. SMITH, with exhibits, - 
filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC.,

Notices of taking depositions of HERMAN BLACKMON, FREDDIE EATON,
WILLIAM GOODWIN, LEROY SIMS, WILLIE STALLWORTH, ISIAH DINKINS, JR.. 
and JOHN PEOPLES filed by defendant,

Motion set this day continued at request of- plaintiff, - 
Motion to Dismiss, filed by defendant COURTAULDS Sept. 21, I97T. 

SUBMITTED after argument, ... - 1 .
/'First interrogatories directed to plaintiffs filed by defendant 

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA,
Status Report Heard, Standard Pre Trial Orderf No.' 1 Entered/' ’ ‘

CUT OFF DATE FOR DISCOVERY FIXED AS OF FEB. 9/ 1972. Copy o f "  
Standard Pre Trial Order No. 1 mailed to the Attorneys of : v. ^
Record .. ... ‘ .. .. ... ... . ...

Notice of taking deposition of HARRY AUSTIN filed by defendant 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Preliminary pretrial order for pretrial set 1-19-72 entered by Judge 
Pittman filed, copies of order mailed to attorneys by Mrs. Andress, 

/plaintiffs' first interrogatories to defendant COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC. filed,

■£~3.

SV- 

ho- 

a 6 2 ,

63.

/o3

/  32-



D ATE

-14-72

1-17-72
1-19-72

Motion for enlargement of time and continuance filed by plaintiffs, 
ORDER entered that the motion for enlargement of time filed by 

olaintiffs is GRANTED and the time for conference of counsel is 
extended to March 4, 1972 and the pretrial conference is hereby 
reset for March 7, 1972 (Min. Entry No. 30524)

Copies of Min. Entry No. 3°524 mailed to attorneys of record,

PROCEED IN 0 3
D ate Ore Judgment

A

PRETRIAL SET FOR JANUARY 19> 1972 IS CONTINUED,
1-27-72 .''ORDERS entered as follows: (Min. Entry No. 30619) ,

^ 1. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted is DENIED, , , .

2. The motion to dismiss the class action aspect or the complaint

3 The motion for a more definite statement is DENIED,
4. The motion to dismiss for failure to join an indespensable 

party is DENIED,

1- 31-72
2- 1-72 
2-4-72
2-11-72

2-23-72
• • * J

2-24-72

3-6-72

3-8-72

3-9-72
3 — 9-72

3-21-72

3-22-72

5 The motion to strike "exhibit A" from the complaint is GRANTED, 
Copies of Min. Entry No. 30619 mailed to attorneys of record,

Motion for class action order filed by plaintiffs,
Motion to reconsider filed by plaintiffs,
Motion for class action order, filed by plaintiffs Feb. 1, 1972 and 
Motion to reconsider, filed by plaintiffs Feb. 4, 1972 referred to

Magistrate, notices mailed to attorneys, Ajr . ...  .....
Motion to Consolidate .with C,A. 6768-71 filed plaintiffs, wet.
Motion to Extend Time for Discovery and Pretrial Conference filed 

by plaintiffs,- wet, • . 7
Motion to continue pre-trial DENIED, ■ • ;
Motion to extend discovery GRANTED provided pre-trial is not 

materially affected, wet,
Notice of ruling mailed to attorneys, wet,
'Motion to-consolidate with C.A. 6768-71 is GRANTED, notice of 

ruling mailed to attorneys, wet,
Plaintiff's first Interrogatories to defendant Local 1465 Textile 
Workers Union of America filed, lps_ .... —

Objections to motion for class action order filed by defendant. . 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., lps '

.Joint pretrial document filed,by parties, lps  ̂ . . . .
.-Pretrial document filed, lps . Q 1070 /w T a  \case Pre Tried by Judge Virgil Pittman on March 9,. 1972 (W. J r0;.) ^

3-17-72 ,/drder On Pretrial Hearing dated 9.Mar. 1972 filed in Clerk's Office 
on Mar. 17# 1972. Copies mailed to Attorneys of Record by

Objections^to^otion" for class action order, filed by. defendant . 
COURTAULDS on 3-8-72 referred to magistrate, Ajr,

takinst deposition of MR. DONALD SMITH, DONALD McVAN, JACK 
PRATHER, JACK REED, JOHNNIE CLARKE, JACK DAVIS and ED CHISHOLM 
filed by plaintiff, jb ••

3-23-72 Notice of taking deposition of Mr. Howard B. Ritchie, Mr. Hestle 
3 Slater,'and Mr. Alva “Scottie" Abrama filed by plaintiff, grs.

/■y/

/Vi

/yy

/¥£-
/&)

/<S2.

(CONTINUED TO NEXT PAGE)



wr

CONTINUATION CIVIL ACTION 6648->-21-P

-.9A B e T .'O tftia ao ck e 't C o n tin u atio n

PRO CEED IN G S
D a u  O rder o r

/ V O

wet,

9-72 M-^io^^o^trike^J^y^gemand filed by plaintiffs, wet, referred to
-72 /Supplementary°interroga€ories propounded to the plaintiff, Harry Aus- /(,(> 

tin, filed by defendant, Courtaulds North America Ind., grs. ;
?.-72 . Motion to produce, filed by defendant Courtaulds North America Inc., 

directed to the plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of 
the class they purport to represent, grs. 

tffappJLementary Interrogatories propounddd to the plaintiffs, individ- /i>8 
ually and for each member of the class plaintiffs that purport to 
represent, filed by defendant Courtaulds North America, Inc., grs.

?0-72 Plaintiffs' reply brief supporting Motion for Class Action order, 
filed, wet,

;3-72 Motion for extension of discovery filed by parties, jb 
-72 Motion for extension of discovery GRANTED, Notices mailed to attorneys 

5-3-72, jb
-72 Motion to Join Indispensable parties-filed by defendant COURTAULDS 0 
; NORTH AMERICA INC.,'wet, " 7 : \
72 -iCnswers to interrogatories, with exhibits,'-filed by defendant

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., (Exhibits are in a red file folder),
7-72 Preposition of DONALD C. SMITH filed, jb _  ..... J ;
7-721 'Brief, filed by plaintiff,, jb / • ' ' ' . " !';-
-72 Memorandum brief opposing Courtauld's motion to Join white employees 

as indispensable parties filed by plaintiffs, lps 
-72 .Plaintiffs' second interrogatories to defendant Courtaudls filed, o'b 
-72 ,Answers to interrogatories propounded by defendant filed by the /sy

plaintiff, o'b . . .  .
.'Deposition of DONALD T. McVAY.filed, jb ' - . . /
Motion for leave to intervene filed by JOHN FOSTER, ET AL (white 

employees of Courtaulds of North America, Inc.), lps 
Reply brief in support of Courtaulds* motion to join white employees 

as Indispensable parties filed, lps ' _
Motion filed 24 July.1972,for Extension of Discovery signed by all 

Attorneys of record except the.Attorney for EEOC, (W.J.O.).
Motion to Join indispensable!parties, filed by’defendant'COURTAULDS 

on May 5, 1972 referred to magistrate 'AJr • - - • --
Notice of taking the Deposition of MR. V7ILLIS T.-MIREE, & MR.-HARRY 

L. AUSTIN, grs. : ' - 7 '. >
Motion for Extension of Discovery, filed by the parties on July 24,

1972 GRANTED, provided It does not delay trial of these cases,AJr. 
Notices mailed to all attorneys, AJr
NOTICE of taking the Depositions of all named plaintiffs, filed by 

the defendants, Courtaulds North America Inc., grs.
Motion for leave to intervene, filed by JOHN FOSTER, et al on July l£

1972 Submitted without argument, AJr
',4—73fAHENDED order of consolidation and definition of class entered (Min. 30? 

Entry No. 31888),.lps .7., •
Copies of Min. Entry No. 31888 mailed to attorneys, lps ..... -
ORDER entered that the motion to Intervene filed by JOHN FOSTER,

ET AL on July 18, 1972 is DENIED (Min, Entry No. 31966), lps 
ORDER entered that the motion to 3°In indispensable parties filed 

by defendant COURTAULDS on May 5, 1972 Is DENIED (Min. Entry 
No. *

>-72. Copies

-72
-72

-72

-72

i—72

-72

J--72

>-72
-72

3 Entry Nos. 31966 and 31967 mailed to attorneys, lps



*wr>

PRO CEED IN G S Judgment/fearA-
3-25-72 ^Request for production of documents directed to defendant COURTAULDS 2 oj

filed by plaintiff, lps __
3-30-72 y Deposition of JOHN PEOPLES filed, lps

/ Deposition of ISAIAH DINKINS filed, lps 
' Deposition of FREDDIE EATON filed, lps 
/Depostion of HERMAN BLACKMAN filed, lps 

-1-72 Motion to Amend the Court's Order of Aug. 24, 1972 denying Courtauld 
Motion to Join White Employees so that an Interlocutory Appeal may 

be taken therefrom under Title 23, Sec. 1292, U. S. Code, or in 
the Alternative, to Reconsider said Order and to Grant Courtaulds 
Motion to Join White Employees, filed by defendant Ajr 

9-6-72 Above motion filed by the defendant on 9-1-72 DENIED, Notices mailed 
to attorneys, Ajr

9-5-72 Motion to Amend the Court's Order of Aug. 24, 1972 Denying Intervenor 
Motion to Intervene so that an Interlocutory Appeal may be taken 
therefrom Under Title 23, Sec. 1292, U. S. Code, or in the Alterna­
tive, to Reconsider said Order and to Grant Intervenors Motion to 
Intervene, filed by the Intervenors on Sept. 5, 1972 Ajr 

9-8-72 Motion for reconsideration of part of order of January 27, 1972,
filed by plaintiffs on February 4, 1972 is DENIED; notices mailed 
to attorneys, lps

Motion for class action order, filed by plaintiffs on February 1,
1972 is MOOT by order of August 14, 1972; notices mailed to . ■ 
.attorneys, lps ' ;' •

9-8-72 J'ORDER entered that the Amended Order of Consolidation and Definit­
ion of Class Issued by Court on August 14, 1972 is corrected 
therein (Min. Entry No. 32067), lps 

9- H -72 . Copies of Min. Entry No. 32067 mailed to attorneys, lps
0-13-72 , ORDER entered that the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants'

demand for jury trial in Civil Action No. 6648-71 is GRANTED 
(Min. Entry No. 32091), lps < • " aV. .

9-14-72 Copies of Min. Entry No. 3209J mailed to attorneys, lps !"r'- 
f ORDER entered extending discovery to October 15, 1972, Min. Entry

No. 32,106-A, Copies mailed to attorneys on 9-18-72, jb 
9-18-72 Motion for order compelling answers to Interrogatories and production 

of documents directed to defendant COURTAULDS, filed by plaintiffs 
referred to Magistrate, lps

Response to request for production of documents filed by defendant x/f 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., jb

9-21-72 Motion for order compelling answers to interrogatories directed to 
plaintiff, filed by defendant COURTAULDS; referred to Magistrate 
on September 22, 1972, lps

9-25-72 ORDER entered that the plaintiffs are to answer within 10 days from 
this date the interrogatories heretofore propounded to ..them by . 
the defendant COURTAULDS and filed on April 6, 1972 (Min. Entry 
No. 32,155), lps ‘

Copies of Min. Entry No. R2.1BB mailed to attorneys, lps,
9-22-72 ' ORDER entered on motion of plaintiff filed September l8, 1972, that 

defendant COURTAULDS is to answer interrogatories or objection 
thereto no later than October-2, 1972; further ORDERED that 
^sald defendant is to produce certain documents for inspection 
and copying no later than October 2, 1972 (Min. Entry No.

9-23-72

3./X

Copies
32152);
ies or

lps
Min. Entry No.- 32152 mailed to attorneys by W. J. 0., lps



**•

»0A Re*. C trll Docket Continuation

P R O C E E D IN G S

3 _72LrAmended Order on Pretrial Hearing entered by Judge Pittman filed, 
copies of order mailed to attorneys on October 3, 1972 by 
'Mrs. Madge Andress, grs.

■5-‘75tasv;er to supplementary interrogatories propounded to plaintiffs 
filed, grs.

6-72 ✓Answers of defendant COURTAULDS to plaintiffs’ second interrogators 
filed, wet,

L0-7^Request for production of documents filed by defendant COURTAULDS, J Ip 
13-72^Answers to interrogatories filed by defendant Local 1465 TEXTILE 

WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, MOBILE. ALABAMA, Jb 
■13-72^ANSWER filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., wet,
12-7 2 Motion to Impanel an Advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on 

Oct. 12, .1972 A Jr •
-l3-7]2 Motion to Impanel an Advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on 

Oct. 12, 1972 DENIED, Notices mailed AJr 
_24-f2 List of witnesses filed by the plaintiffs, grs.
,o0_4r Depositions of EARL EATON, WILLIE SULLIVAN, WILLIE STALLWORTH,

^  HERMAN BLACKMON, LEVON THORNTON, ROOSEVELT HURD, LAMAR HILL,
LEROY SIMS WARREN EATON, ALPHONSE CREAGH, FREDDIE EATON, WILLIAM 
GOODWIN," JAMES D. SMITH, JOHN A. FOSTER, & HARRY D.. AUSTIN, file* 

0,-72 Case set this- 3 Nov. 1972 and continued ..(WjJ.O.)
72,-Settlement Agreement filed by the parties, (Je)

-tfoint Motion to Amend Class Definition, To approve Settlement, and 
to authorized Notice to Class filed by parties, (Je) -•

^-72/£>RDER entered that the Court order of August 14, 19721s amended 
in “the definition of class; settlement agreement is approved 
preliminarily pending a hearing on any objection which may be 
filed and approving Notice to ,Class which are to be mailed to 
each member of plaintiff’s class (Min. Entry No. 32583)* lps 

-72 Copies of Min. Entry No. 32583 mailed to attorneys, lps 
»-72''.'Notice to Class w/attachmants entered, lps ’
i-72 ITptice to Class w/attachemts mailed to attorneys, lps 
L4 —72''̂ ORDER entered that the Court's order of December 4, 1972 is AMENDED 

to permit service of Notice to Class by mail or by hand (Min.
Entry No. 32620), lps • . .

72 Copies of Min. Entry No. 32620 mailed to attorneys, lps 
-73 Motion to Intervene as plaintiffs filed by WALTER FRIESON, JOHN 

WHITE and A. C. LILY with proposed intervenors complaint 
attached); lps , . , •

73 ORDER entered setting motion to Intervene and .objections to pro­
posed settlement for January 11, 1973 at 4:30 P. M. .(Min. Entry 
No. 32759 ),. lps . . ■ • • . (

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32759 mailed to attorneys, lps •
-73 y-'Report on the mailing of notice to-class members filed, by plain--

tiffs, l p s .....  . ......... ..  •• V.~ •
Order entered DENYING motion to Intervene,filed 1-2-73; Minute. 
/Entry No. 32,784-C AJr . , - >

/-Order entered approving Settlement Agreement; parties to implement 
‘ same; All Claims and Issues are disposed of with prejudice, Min. 

Entry No. 32,784
73 Copies of Min. Entry 32,784 and 32,784-C mailed to attorneys, Ajr

(OVER)

D ate O rd er or 
Jud gm en t N oted 
P A C , G  AJO

2 3-/

/2 2-
Z «" 
3 o  2-

308

1 grs.

3 13
3 Vo

J 3 o

3 3 3

33%

3L°



D A T E P R O C E E D IN G S

1-18-73

1-23-73

i 1-29-73i
| 2-2-73 

j*
5-1-73
6-19-73

<
! 10-5-73.i
10-25-73

10- 30-73
11- 8-73 
11-14-73
11-14-73
11-26-73
11-26-73
11-27-73 j 1-31-74

67)

37c
t/o.

^Proposed method of distributing back pay to plaintiff class
members filed by plaintiffs w/exhibit A (amount each plaintiff 
class member to receive), exhibit B (proposed Notice of 
Compromise & Settlement of Class Action Back Pay Claims), 
exhibit C (proposed Order on Settlement) and exhibit.D (release 
of claims), lps

,■''Objection to Plaintiffs' Counsel's Proposal for Distribution of \3fz- 
tack pay award and Objection to Plaintiffs' counsel's Release 
form, and

✓Proposal of Courtaulds North America, Inc. for Distribution of
back pay award and Proposal of Courtaulds North America Inc. for 
Release Form, filed by the defendant, Courtaulds Ajr 

Objections to Plaintiffs' Counsel's Release Form and Proposal for
Release Form filed by the defendant, TEXTILE YIORKERS UNION, Locah 
Number 1465> Ajr

-Objections to Plaintiffs'Proposal for Distribution of back pay- 
award and Release form, filed by defendant Courtaulds, and 

Objections to Plaintiffs' Release Form, etc., filed by defendant 
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, etc., referred to magistrate, Ajr

A-2, B-l, 2, & 3, B-4, B-5, C-l, C-2, and D-l filed 
, by the defendants pursuant to the settlement order, (1eT 

ORDER entered June 15, 1973, on the method of distributing7back pay 
to plaintiff class members, see Min. Entry No. 33,759 , conies

s mailed to attorneys of record.
ORDER entered. MaylT7, >1973’- SUSTAINING objections to paragraph 2 of ti e ¥0 

proposed method of distributing back pay, and OVERRULING paragraphs 
1, 3, 4, 5, 6,.7, and 8; it is further ordered that the objection 
of defendants' to the release form is sustained, see Min. Entry Ni.

33>591-A, copies mailed to attorneys of record, grs.
-^ffidavit of J. U. Blacksher filed, (je) . 'C, •
✓Notice of compromise and settlement of class action back pay claims 

filed, (Je) ' .
ORDER entered GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to amend and add as party 

plaintiffs heirs at law of three or four of the claimants who are 
now deceased; objections and proposed settlement .are taken under 
advisement by the Court (Min. Entry No. 34552-B), lps

Copies of Min. Entry No. 34552-B mailed to attorneys, lps ...•.
Motion to substitute parties plaintiff, etc.’ filed b y ‘plaintiffs, lis 
Motion to substitute parties palintiff filed by plaintiffs on 

November 8, 1973 is GRANTED; notice mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered on plaintiff's motion to substitute parties plain­

tiff (Min. Entry No. 34659-G), lps 
Copies of Min. Entry No. 34659-0 mailed to attorneys, lps 

'tfRDER entered on final approval method of distributing back pay 
to plaintiff class members (Min. Entry No.' 34723), lps 

Copies of Min. Entry No. 34723 mailed to attorneys, lps 
Motion to be relieved of any further liability with respect to 

four former employees (Willie 0. Dubose, Lawson Harvey, James L.
Reed and Richard Smith) for whom settlement checks have been 
drawn, and who defendant has been unable to locate, filed by de­
fendant, Courtaulds. mpc

y/'
m

IJ66



CONTINUATION C^'IL ACTION NO. 6648-71-P
-10 A  Rev-.'Clvi! D o ck et Continu ation

P R O C E E D IN G S D ate O rd er o r 
J ud gm ent Noted
PA&f*- Ifo

-8-7*

11-7*
.20-7^

BORDER entered pursuant to defendants’ Motion filed 1-31-74 that 
^'defendant COURTAULDS is relieved from further efforts to locate 
the individuals (namely WILLIE 0. DUBOSE, LAWSON HARVEY, JAMES L. 
REED and RICHARD SMITH), and the checks are ordered to be held by 
the Clerk of this Court for payment to said former employees at 
such time as they may be located, or awaiting further order of 
the Court; M/E No. 35*096, wet,
(MEMO: Original motion and copy of order together with the 4

checks for the 4 named individuals are in a red folder 
behind court 'file for C. A. 6648-71-), wet,

Copy of M/E No. 35,096 mailed to all attorneys of record, wet,
Affidavits of EMMA LEE MULLINS, DOROTHY GAMBLE, and EDNA WARREN 

filed, to the effect that all sums which may be disbursed to 
them by the Honorable John L. Moore, Judge of Probate, will be 
used solely for the support and maintenance of their minor 
children, mpc

ORDER entered by court AMENDING the court's order of 11-14-73 by 
substituting certain parties with directions as to disbursement 
of funds to substituted parties and to certain minor children, 
.etc., see M/E 33,286, copy mailed to attys. o ’b

5-74 Semi-annual report made pursuant to & in accordance with Court's 
order approving settlement, filed by defendant COURTAULDS, wet, 

;?5-75„Motion for Declaration of Rights and Enforcement of Decree, filed 
by plaintiffs, Ajr

~75 ,̂ lotion for declaration of rights and additional relief filed by 
plaintiff and class, lps

I

21-7^
i

l

fc-75
ir-75

-75

9- 75
31-75
>*23-76

^24-76

for

/Motion to stay filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., w 
-fllotion to dismiss and motion to stay filed by defendant UNIONS; 

motion to stay granted pending arbitration. Parties to advise the~ 
Court when ruling is entered in arbitration & plaintiffs' motion 
declaration of rights to be set specially; notice mailed attorneys, 

Lfoticn for evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for declaration 
of rights filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; motion 
stayed. See order 8-27-75 on defendant UNIONS' motion to stay; 
notice of ruling mailed attorneys, wet,

.Motion to stay filed by defendant COURTAULDS on 8-26-75 is GRANTED; 
See order 8/27/75 endorsed on def. UNIONS' motion to stay; notice 
of ruling mailed attorneys, wet,

Motion set this motion day continued, Ajr
Court settlement report filed byCourtaulds of North America, Ajr 
Joint motion to extend legal effect .of settlement agreement executed 

December 4, 1972 and to modify Court order of January 11, 1973 
filed, lps

ORDER entered, on Joint motion of parties, extending legal effect 
of settlement agreement and Court order until May 1, 1981 subject 
to certain modification more particularly set out in this order; 
further ORDERED that the Court retain jurisdiction of these 
causes until May 1, 1931 (Min. Entry No. 40334), lps

yyy

t, VtfS- 
W 7

wet,
yy?

tpso

(OVER)



o

3-25-76

2t_lit_76

13-76 ,

-21-76 ,

Copies of joint motion of parties filed on March 23, 1976 and copy 
of Min. Entry No. t033^ mailed to attorneys, lps

''ORDER entered DENYING motion for declarationof rights and enforcemer 
of decree filed by plaintiffs FREDDIE EATON and WILLIE SULLIVAN. 
See Minute Entry No. 40508, jrb. Copy of order mailed to attorney 
of record (See C. A. 6768-7I-P)

Notice of Aopeal filed by the plaintiffs, (je)
$250.00 Cost-Bond filed, (Je)
''Order entered extending time to file record on appeal to and 
' including August 11, 1976, (je)
/Stipulation of parties filed, (Je)
.'Certificate of Counsel for Appellants tiled, (je)

P R O C E E D IN G S D a te  C JudgTne

t

It-i 

y bS-

»

II
1

!

>•
i

x



• " • . CIVIL DOCKET
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

n v x x v i i  a i v  •  w  | u c / -  | a  r  r l T . v x sr-nn T o m  va'
//•2 ' 7 2  676r-7/-/>

Jury demand date: August 2, 1971 
by COURTAULDS

p . C. Form  No. 106A Rev.

T I T L E  O F  C A SE A T T O R N E Y S

HARRY AUSTIN, Individually and on 
behalf of other persons similarly 
situated,

Plaintiff,

VERSUS
COURTAULD'S OF NORTH AMERICA,
LEMOYNE, ALABAMA; TEXTILE WORKERS 
UNION OF AMERICA; LOCAL 1465 of TEXTILE 
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, SATSUMA, ALABAM

Defendants.
'A.

For plaintiff:
FRANKIE-FIELDS-SMITH-, Withdrawn 

lbi6--Step-hens--Road M/E 30,478 
•Mobile-,- Ai-abamar - 36603
JAMES U . BLACKSHER   " “
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

ET AL
APPLICANTS IN INTERVENTION FRIESON,
DONALD M. B R I S K M A N ---‘
257 St. Anthony Street 
Mobile, Ala., 36603

CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. 6648-71-P.

July 9, 1971. Suit for declaratory Judg­
ment that constitutional rights of plain­
tiffs are being violated under Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, and for an injunction 
restraining defendants from maintaining a 
policy or practice of denying black empl 
of the company the same protection and be; 
fits of union membership as white employe*;

For defendant: Textile Workers- Union of—
America and Local 1465 _____  .

-L--ERd-raich-(a.iso see oelaw:).. 
-4Q9 No. -21st-Avanuê sr/?£i?r 
Birmingham,-Alabama - 352Q3withdraw:
-Obfes Ciaon See Mr. Erdreich
•■1010 Van An (w a rp Building letter 
-Mobile1, Alabama jijSOO dated 8/26/

oy

Textile Workers 
Eatricia E. Eamas withdrawn 
99-University-Plaee 
New-York, New-York— 10003

For defendant COURTAULDS:eesj^e- — Paul W. Brock
;8> P. 0. Box 123, Mobile, Ala. 3660:

S T A T IS T IC A L  R E C O R D

J.S. 5 mailed

J.S. 6 mailed 

Basis of Action:

.Civil Rights Act,1964. 

Action arose at:

Clerk

Marshal 

Docket fee 

Witness fees 

Depositions

D A T E

15 00 LOCji

'OTTOioiq>
Mob

N A M E O R  
R E C E IP T  NO.

L 1465. TE
E. SIMON 
Van Antwe: 
le, Alabam:

R E C .

TILE WON

p Bldg. 
36502

KERS UNION:
D IS B .

.biltii«i SiJ n latw- 3
ffTT.T-tAM J. 01 COi.’KOR, OMSK

By ------
Cy ■ Deputy C le r k



o 0

P R O C E E D IN G S

7— 9-71,/Complaint filed,
7-13-71 4 copies of summons and complaint delivered to U.S.Marshal for

service on defendants,
7 -15-71 Return of Marshal filed showing service of summons & complaint on 

defendants,
7- 27-71 Summons returned, executed as to TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,

! Summons returned, executed as to TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA 
(William Pollock, President),

8- 2-71 jMotion to stay or dismiss filed by defendants TEXTILE WORKERS UNION 
| OF AMERICA and LOCAL 1465 with brief in support of same attached,

8-12-71 Motion filed Aug. 12, 1971, by the Plaintiff to Strike Demand for 
Jury Trial, with Certificate of Service (W.J.O'C.)

8-13-71 Motion for extension of time to file memorandum in opposition to 
motion to dismiss filed by plaintiff in open court,

Motion to stay further proceedings for not more than sixty days 
pending efforts of E.E.O.C. to resolve issues filed by defendant 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC. on August 2, 1971 is GRANTED,

Motion to dismiss filed by defendants TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA and LOCAL 1465 on August 2, 1971 -is TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION 
on briefs; defendants allowed until August 24, 1971 to file 
brief,

Notice of rulings of this date mailed to attorneys of record,
Motion filed-2 Aug. 1971 by the defendant, COURTAULDS NORTH

FLUE"

D ate O rder 
Jud gm ent N;

m;
l

-8-3:3-71

8-30-71 

8-25-71 

1 9-1-71

■"AMERICA-;— INC to—Stay This-Cause-pending efforts—of— the-Equal

Motion to strike demand for Jury trial filed by plaintiff on 
8/12/71 submitted on briefs,

Motion to dismiss or stay filed by defendants, TEXTILE WORKERS UNIOljT 
OF AMERICA filed on 8/2/71 is GRANTED as to the Motion to Stay, 

Motion to strike demand for Jury trial filed by plaintiff on 8/12/7!L 
is GRANTED, notice of court's rulings of 8/25/71 and 9/1/71 
mailed to attorneys,

10-7-71 Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC.,

H _ 5_71 Motions set this Motion Day continued by consent,
1 1_19_71 Motion for stay of proceedings, filed by defendant COURTAULD'S

on October 7, 1971 DENIED by agreement; notices mailed to all 
attorneys. mpc

12-9-7). Case came up on Stautus Report as of 9 Dec. 1971. Defendant 
Courtauld's to file Motion to Dismiss on or before Dec. 16,
1971. Said motion to Dismiss will be set on the next motion docket. 

12-16-71 Motion for more definite statement filed by defendant COURTAULDS 
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,12-20-73i/Standard Pretrial Order No. 1 entered, DISCOVERY March 20, 1972; 
Witnesses, March 30, 1972 

Pretrial Order mailed to attorneys of record (4)
12-22-71 Motion to Withdraw as attorney for the plaintiff filed by Mrs Frankije 

Fields Smith, attorney, copies of this motion may mailed to attys 
of record,

1-6-72 Order entered GRANTING Mts Frankie Fields Smith the atty for the 
plaintiff to withdraw as counsel for same, See M/E 3°,4-78,

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE



■  II I II .11 'M M >.!■ ■ ■ '

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6768-71 I

C. 110A R e v.-C iv il D ocket C o n tin u atio n

DATE

-18-72
1-21-7
1-18-72

{-22-72
-23-7:

•24-7 

8-72

9-72
*9-72
21- 72

22 -  72

23-72

23-72
■29-72
-6-72

12-

■20-72
27-72
2-72

5-72

5-72

:7-72
-72

PROCEEDIN GS

Notice of taking deposition of HARRY AUSTIN filed by defendant, 
Motion set this motion day, passed by consent,
Motion for more definite statement filed by defendant COURTAULDS 

on December 16/ 1971 is GRANTED by agreement, lps 
Notice of ruling of February 18, 1972 mailed to attorneys of record,

2 Motion to Consolidate with C.A. 6648-71 filed by plaintiffs, wet 
First Amendment to complaint filed by plaintiffs, wet,

2-Motion to Consolidate with C.A. 6648 is GRANTED, notice of ruling 
mailed to attorneys, wet,

Preliminary pretrial order for pretrial set 3-9-72 entered by Judge 
Pittman, copies mailed to attorneys by Mrs. Andress, wet, 

Objections to motion for class action order filed by defendant 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., lps 

^/Joint pretrial document filed . by parties, lps ...
■>̂ Pretrial document filed, lps
Case Pre Tried by Judge Virgil Pittman on March 9, 1972 (W.J.O.) 
Objections to motion for class action order, filed by defendant 

COURTAULDS on 3-8-72 referred to magistrate, AJr 
Notice of taking depositions of DONALD SMITH, DONALD McVAY, JACK 

PRATHER, JACK REED, JOHNNIE CLARICE, JACK DAVIS and ED CHISOLM 
.filed by plaintiff, jb

'Status Report heard, amendment to standard pretrial order entered 
extending discovery to APRIL 19, 1972, and naming of iwitnesses 
to APRIL 29, 1972, notice of extension mailed to attorneys,

Notice of taking depositions of Mr. Howard B. Ritchie, Mr. Hestle 
Salter, & Mrl Alva Abrams filed by plaintiff, grs.

M3j|il$0i§27§|trIke Jury Demand filed by plaintiff, wet, referred to Magi 
,pSupplementai^ interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff, Harry Aus 

tin, filed by defendant Courtaulds North America Inc., grs. 
rotion to produce, filed by defendant, Courtaulds North America, Inc. 

directed to the plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of 
the class they purport to represent, grs.

.Supplementary Interrogatories propounded to'the plaintiffs, individ­
ually and for each member of the class plaintiffs that purport to 
represent, filed by defendant, Courtaulds North America, Inc. grs. 

Plaintiffs' reply brief supporting Motion for Class action order, 
filed, wet, •

Motion for extension of discovery filed by parties, jb . .
Motion for extension of discovery GRANTED to and including July 1, 

1972. notices mailed to attorneys 5-3-72, jb
Motion to join Indispensable parties filed by defendant COURTAULDS 

NORTH AMERICA INC., wet, .
Motion to Dismiss the action as a class action filed by defendant. 

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., referred to Magistrate on 5-8-72,- : 
Notice of referral mailed to attorneys, wet,

% Answers to interrogatories, with exhibits, filed by defendant
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., (Exhibits are in a red file folder
with C.A. 6648-71), wet, - ..... - '

Erief filed by plaintiff, jb' ■'.°?. •
Memorandum brief opposing Courtauld's motion to Join white employees 

as indispensable parties' filed by plaintiffs (See CA 6648-71), lps
(OVER) -1

D ate Order or 
Jud gm ent NoteaRAGS NO ..

72 f*

11
11
18

20
34

strate
37

39

41

43

A?*



D ATE

6 - 1 -  72

6-22-72
6- 22-72

6 - 28-72
7- 20-72

7-24-72

7-25-72

7- 28-72

3-3-72
8- 14— 72
8-15-72
8-24-72

8-25-72
8- 25-72

>9-1-72

9- 6-72 

9-5-72

9-8-72

9-8-72

9-11-72
9-13-72

9-14-72

PROCEED IN O S

Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Patricia Eames and Benj. 
Erdreich,lps

Plaintiffs' second interrogatories to defendant Courtaulds filed, o'b 
Answers to interrogatories propounded by defendant filed bythe 
/  plaintiff, o'b
Jeposition of DONALD T. McVAY filed, (See File 6648), jb 
Reply brief in support of Courtaulds' motion to join white employees 

as indispensable parties filed, lps 
Moticn filed 24 July 1972 for Extension of Discovery signed by all 

Attorneys of record except Patricia E. Ames (W.J.O.) 
lotice of taking the Deporitions of MR. WILLIS T. MIREE, AND MR.

HARRY.L. .AUSTIN, filed by the defendant, grs.
Motion for Extension of Discovery, filed by the parties on July 24, 

1972 GRANTED, provided it does not delay trial of these cases, Ajr 
Notices mailed to all attorneys, Ajr
Motion to withdraw as counsel, filed by Patricia Eames and Benj. L.
Erdreich on June 1, 1972 GRANTED, Ajr 

Notices mailed,
‘IOTICE of taking the Depositions of all named plaintifffiled by 

the defendants, Courtaulds North America Inc., grs.
J/iMENDED order of consolidation and definition of class entered (Min. 

Entry No. 31888), lps
Copies of Min. Entry No. 31888 mailed to attorneys, lps
ORDER entered that the motion to intervene filed by JOHN FOSTER,
: ET AL on July 18, 1972 is DENIED (Min. Entry No. 31966), lps 
ORDER entered that the motion to join indispensable parties filed 

by defendant COURTAULDS on May 5, 1972 Is DENIED (Min. Entry No.
' 31967), lps - 7 ........ - ' ' • ' ' '
Copies of Min. Entry No. 31966 and 31967 nailed to attorneys, lps 
Request for production of documents directed to defendant COURTAULDS 

filed by plaintiff, lps
Motion to Amend the Court's Order of Aug. 24, 1972 denying Courtaulds 

motion to join white employees so that an Interlocutory Appeal may 
by taken therefrom under Title 28, Sec. 1292, U. S'. Code, or in 
the Alternative, to Reconsider said Order and to Grant'Courtaulds' 
Motion to Join White Employees, filed by defendant Ajr 

ibove motion filed by the defendant on 9-1-72 DENIED, Notices mailed 
to attorneys, Ajr ... - 'V ’

Motion to Amend the Court's Order of Aug. 24, 1972 Denying Intervenof 
Motion to Intervene so that an Interlocutory Appeal may be taken 
therefrom Under Title 23, Sec. 1292, U. S'. Code,, or in the Alterna­
tive, to Reconsider said Order and to Grant Intervenors Motion to 
Intervene, filed by the. Intervenors on Sept. 5,' 1972 'Ajr 

Motion to dismiss filed by defendant COURTAULDS on May 5> 1972 is 
MOOT by order of August 14, 1972; notices mailed to attorneys, lps 

,ORDER entered that the Amended Order of Consolidation and Definit- 
’ ion of Class Issued by Court on August 14, 1972 is corrected 

therein (Min. Entry No. 32067), lps 
Copies of Min. Entry No. 32067 mailed to attorneys, lps 

ORDER entered that the plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' 
demand for jury, trial in Civil Action No. 6648-71 is GRANTED 
(Min. Entry No. 32091), lps

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32091 mailed to attorneys, lps

51

56

/Z/!>



CIVIL ACTION NO. 6768-71 PITTMAN

C .  I10A Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

?-l4-72

•18-72

-21-72

-25-72

r2 2 -7 2

23-72 
i-72

5-72

6-72
0-72

l-S-72
>-4-72

-4-72

'-8-72
>4-72
1-11-72
-14-72

-18-72

PROCEEDIN GS

BA
EntryORDER entered extending discovery to October 15, 1972, Min 

No. 32,106-A, Copies mailed to attorneys on 9-18-72, Jb 
Motion for order compelling answers to interrogatories and pro­

duction of documents directed to defendant COURTAULDS, filed by 
plaintiffs; referred to Magistrate, lps 

Response to request for production of documents filed by defendant 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., Jb

Motion for order compelling answers to interrogatories directed to 
.plaintiff, filed by defendant COURTAULDS; referred to Magistrate 
on September 22, 1972, lps

ORDER entered that the plaintiffs are to answer within 10 days from 
this date the Interrogatories heretofore propounded to them by 
the defendant COURTAULDS and filed on April 6, 1972 (Min. Entry 
No. 32.155, ), lps

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32,155 mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered on motion of plaintiff filed September 18, 1972, that 

defendant COURTAULDS Is to answer interrogatories or objection 
thereto no later than October 2, 1972; further ORDERED that 
said defendant is to produce certain documents for inspection 
and copying no later than October 2, 1972 (Min. Entry No.
32152), lps ----------- '— ------

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32152 mailed to attorneys by W. J. 0., lps vf Amended order on Pretrial Hearing entered by Judge Pittman filed, 
copies of order mailed to attorneys on October 3, 1972 by Mrs. 
Madge Andress, grs.

Answer to supplementary interrogatories propounded to plaintiffs 
by defendant, filed, grs.

Answers of defendant COURTAULDS to plaintiffs' second Interrogatories 
filed, wet, (ANSWERS ARE IN COURT FILED FOR C.A. 6643-71), wet, 

Request for production of documents filed by defendant COURTAULDS, 1b 
(SEE C.A. 6648-71), Jb J

.8-72 vANSWER filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., wet,
Motion to Impanel an Advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on Oct.12, 

1972 AJr
)-lS-7£ Motion to Impanel an advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on Oct.12 

1972 DENIED, Notices mailed AJr 
Case set this 8 Nov. 1972 and continued (W.J.O.)
Settlement Agreement filed by the parties, (Je)
Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition to approve Settlement, and 

to authorized Notice to Class filed by parties, (Je)
ORDER entered that the Court order of August 14, .1^2 is amended 

in the definition of class; settlement agreement Is approved . 
preliminarily, pending a hearing on any objection which may be 
filed and approving Notice to Class which are to be mailed to 
each member of plaintiff's class (Min. Entry No. 32583), lps"/ 

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32583 mailed to attorneys, lps 
Notice to Class with attachemts entered, lps 
Notice to Class with attachments mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered that the Court's order of December 4, 1972 is AMENDED 

to permit service of Notice to Class by mail or by hand (Min.Entry No. 32620), lps v
Copies of Min.Entry No. 32620 mailed to attorneys, lps

(OVER)

D ate Order o r  
dem ent Nou-wn

63

64

,0



D ATE

1-2-73

1-9-73

1-11-73

PROCEEDINGS
Dst# Ortl

pa4s w ;

1-16-73
1-18-73

1-23-73

1- 29-73

2- 2-73
t

5- 1-73

6- 19-73

Motion to intervene as plaintiff filed by WALTER FRIESON, JOHN 
WHITE and A. C. LILY with proposed intervenors complaint 
attached, lpsORDER entered setting motion to intervene and objections to pro­
posed settlement for January 11, 1973 at 4:30 P. M. (Min. Entry

Copies o f ^ M ^ E n t ^  No. 32759 mailed to attorneys, lps 
Report on the mailing of notice to class members filed by plain­

tiffs, lps
Order entered DENYING motion to intervene, filed 1-2-73; Minute 

Entry No. 32,734-C AJr
Order entered approving Settlement Agreement; parties to implement 

same; All. Claims: 2nd Issues are disposed of with prejudice,
Min. Entry No. 32,734

Copies of Min. Entry 32,734 and 32, 7S4-C mailed to attorneys, AJr 
Proposed method of distributing back-pay to plaintiff class

members filed by plaintiffs w/exhibits A (amount each plaintiff 
class member to receive), exhibit B (Proposed Notice of 
Compromise & Settlement of Class Action Bank Pay Claims), 
exhibit/ C (Proposed Order on Settlement) and exhibit D (Release
of Claims), lps .Ob lection to-Plaintiffs1 Counsel's Proposal for Distribution of 
back pay award and Objection to Plaintiffs' counsel's Release

Proposal of Courtaulds North America, Inc. for Distribution of tack 
pay award and Proposal of Courtaulds North America, Inc. for 
Release Form, filed by the defendant, Courtaulds, Ajr 

Ob lections to Plaintiffs' Counsel's Release Form and Proposal for 
Release Form, filed by the defendant TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, Local 
Number 1465 AjrOb lections to Plaintiffs' Proposal for Distribution of back pay 
award and Release form, filed by defendant Courtaulds, and 

Objections to Plaintiffs' Release Form, etc., filed by defendant, 
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, etc., referred to magistrate, Ajr

Exhibits A-l, A-2,B-1, 2, & 3, B-4, B-5, C-l, C-2, and D-l filed 
by the defendant prusuant to the settlement order (je) Exhibits 
can be found with companion case 6648-71 
)RDER entered June 15, 1973, on the method of distributing back pay, 
r toiplaintiff class members, see Min. Entry No. 33,759* copies 

mailed to attorneys of record.
ORDER entered May 17, 1973 SUSTAINING objections to paragraph 2 of the 

proposed method of distributing back pay, and OVERRULING paragraphs 
1 ,3,4,5,6,7,and 8; it is further ordered that the objection of 
defendants' to the release form is sustained, see Min. Entry No.
33,591-A, copies of order mailed to attorneys of record, grs.

IO-5-73 Affidavit of J. U. Blacksher filed, (Je)
Notice of Compromise and Settlement of Cl

192S-73 ORDER ̂ ni^ered GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to amend and add as party 
plaintiffs heirs at law of three or four of the claimants who are 
now deceased; objections and proposed settlement are taken under 
advisement by the Court (Min. Entry No. 34552-B), lps 

10-3Q-73 Copies of Min. Entry No. 3^552-B mailed to attorneys, lps
(SEE CONTINUATION SHEET)

Lass Action Back Pay Claims,



CIVIL ACTION NO. 6768-71 PITTMAN

<j. 11OA Rev. c iv il Docket Continuation

5-14-72

-18-72

-21-72

-25-72

 ̂22-72

23-72 
B-72

i-72

■6-72
.0-72

L2-72 

)-l3-72
.-3-72
>-4-72

-4-72

>8-72
>4-72
1-11-72
>14-72

-18-72

PRO CEED IN G S

ORDER entered extending discovery to October 15, 1972, Min. Entry 
No. 32,106-A, Copies mailed to attorneys on 9-18-72, Jb 

Motion for order compelling answers to interrogatories and pro- 
duction of documents directed to defendant COURTAULDS, filed bv 
plaintiffs; referred to Magistrate, lps y

Response to request for production of documents filed bv defpnrtsnt 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., Jb Y defendant

Motion for order compelling answers to interrogatories directed to 
.plaintiff, filed by defendant COURTAULDS; referred to Magistrate 
on September 22, 1972, lps

ORDER entered that the plaintiffs are to answer within 10 days from 
this date the Interrogatories heretofore propounded to them by 
the ̂ defendant COURTAULDS and filed on April 6, 1972 (Min. Entry

Copies of Min.*Entry No. 32.155 mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered on motion of plaintiff filed September 18, 1972, that 

defendant COURTAULDS is to answer Interrogatories or objection 
thereto no later than October 2, 1972; further ORDERED that 
said defendant is to produce certain documents for insoection 
and copying no later than October 2, 1972 (Min. Entry No.
32152), lps

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32152 mailed to attorneys by W. J. 0 . Ids v^Amended order on Pretrial Hearing entered by Judge Pittman filed, 
copies of order mailed to attorneys on October 3, 1972 by Mrs. 
Madge Andress, grs. -

AnSv8r t̂ 2 supplementary interrogatories propounded to plaintiffs by defendant, filed, grs.
Answers of defendant COURTAULDS to plaintiffs' second interrogatories 

filed, wet, (ANSWERS ARE IN COURT FILES FOR C.A. 6648-71) wet
^SElTcjU ^648-71 )°njbf d°CUments riled defendant COURTAULDS, Jb

.8-72 vAnswer filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., wet,
Motion to Impanel an Advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on Oct.12, 1972 Ajr *
Motion to Impanel an advisory Jury, filed by the defendant on Oct.12 
1972 DENIED, Notices mailed Ajr ^

Case set this 3 Nov. 1972 and continued (W.J.O.)
Settlement Agreement filed by the parties, (Je)
Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition to approve Settlement, and 

to authorized Notice to Class filed by parties, (Je)
ORDER entered that the Court order of August 1 4 , 1 ^ 2  is amended 

In the definition of class; settlement agreement is approved 
preliminarily, pending a hearing on any objection which may be 
filed and approving Notice to Class which are to be mailed to
each member of plaintiff's class (Min. Entry. No. 32583). lbs---

Copies of Min. Entry No. 32583 mailed to attorneys, lps 
Notice to Class with attachemts entered, lps 
Notice to Class with attachments mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered that the Court's order of December 4, 1972 Is AMENDED

Entry^ 0? §2620)? Ips^ 106 t0 ClaSS by “ U  °r by hand (Mln- 
Copies of Min.Entry No. 32620 mailed to attorneys, lps

(OVER)

Judgmen
PAOK

D ate Order o r  
Judgm ent Note-.NO

63

64



j'.. .v*r
CONTINUATION OP CIVIL ACTION NO. 6768-

D. C. 11QA R «v. Civil Docket Continuation

11-8-73
11-14-73
11-14-73

11-26-73
11-26-73
11-27-73
1-31-74

2-8-74

PR O CE E D IN G S D ate O rde 
Judgm ent I■ - mJudgm ei

T T

2- 11-74
3- 20-74

<p 3-21-74

11-6-74

3-25-75
8-12-75

3-26-75
3-27-75

Motion to substitute parties plaintiff, etc. filed by plaintiff, lp 
Motion to substitute parties plaintiff filled by plaintiff on 

November 8, 1973 is GRANTED; notice mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered on plaintiff's motion to substitute parties plain­

tiff (Min. Entry No. 34659-G), lps 
Cdpies of Min. Entry No. 34659-G mailed to attorneys, lps 
ORDER entered on final approval method of distributing back pay 

to plaintiff class members (Min. Entry No. 34723), lps 
Copies of Min. Entry No. 34723 mailed to attorneys, lps 
Motion to be relieved of any further liability with respect to four 

former employees (Willie 0. Dubose, Lawson Harvey, James L. Reed 
and Richard Smith) for whom settlement checks have been drawn, 
and who defendant has been unable to locate, filed by defendant, 
Courtaulds. mpc

ORDER entered pursuant to defendants' Motion filed 1-31-74 that 
defendant:COURTAULDS is relieved from further efforts to locate 
the individuals (namely WILLIE 0. DUBOSE, LAWSON HARVEY, JAMES L.
REED and RICHARD SMITH), and the checks are ordered to be held by 
the Clerk of this Court for payment to said former employees at 
such tim& as they may be located, or awaiting further orders of 
the Court; M/E No. 35,096, wet,
(MEMO: Original motion and copy of order together with the 4

checks for the 4 named individuals are in a red folder 
behind court file for C. A. 6648-71), wet,

Copy of M/E No. 35,096 mailed to all attorneys of record, wet,
Affidavits of EMMA LEE MULLINS, DOROTHY GAMBLE, and EDNA WARREN 

filed, to the effect that all sums which may be disbursed to them 
by the Honorable John L. Moore, Judge of Probate, will be used 
solely for the support and maintenance of their minor children, 
mpc

ORDER entered by court AMENDING court's order of 11-14-73 by _
substituting certain parties with directions as to disbursement 
of funds to substituted parties and to certain minors, etc., 
see M/E No. 35,286, copy mailed to tttys. o ’b

Semi-annual report made pursuant to & in accordance with Court's 
order approving settlement, filed by defendant COURTAULDS, wet,
Motion for Declaration of Rights and Enforcement of Decree, filed 

by the plaintiffs, Ajr
Motion for declaration of rights and additional relief filed by 

plaintiff and class, lps
Motion to stay filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., weft, 
Motion to dismiss and motion to stay filed by defendant UNIONS; 
motion to stay granted pending arbitration. Parties to advise the 
Court when ruling is entered in arbitration & plaintiffs' motion fo 
declaration of rights to be set specially; notice mailed attorneys, wet, 

Motion for evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for declaration 
of rights filed by defendant COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; motion 
stayed. See order 3-27-75 on defendant UNIONS' motion to stay; 
notice of ruling mailed attorneys, wet,

(OVER)



D A T E

3-27-7?

3-29-75
10-31-75
3-23-76

3-24-76

3- 25-76

4- 14-76

P R O C E E D IN G S D ate Oi 
Jud^men

-P1GE B
Motion to stay filed by' defendant C0URTAULD3 on 3-26-75 is GRANTED;
See order 3-27-75 endorsed on def. UNIONS' motion to stay; notice5 
of ruling mailed attorneys, wet,
Motion set this motion day continued, Ajr
Court settlement report filed by Courtaulds of North America Ajr 
Joint motion to extend legal effect of settlement agreement executes 

December 4, 1972 and to modify Court order of January 11, 1973 
filed, Is

ORDER entered, on joint motion of parties, extending legal effect 
of settlement agreement and Court order until May 1, 1981 subject 
to certain modifications more particularly set out in this order; 
further ORDERED that the Court retain jurisdiction of these 
causes until May 1, 1931 (Min. Qatry No. 40334), lps 

Copies of joint motion of parties filed on March 23, 1976 and copies 
of Min. Entry No. 40334 mailed to attorneys, lps

ORDER entered DENYING motion for declaration of rights and enforcement 
• of decree filed by plaintiffs FREDDIE EATON and WILLIE SULLIVAN.

See Miniite Entry No. 40508, jrb. Copy of order mailed to attorneys 
of record ( See C. A. 6648-71-P)

5-13-76 v^Notice of Appeal filed by plainti'ffs (je)
v̂ $250.00 Cost Bond filed, (je) ' • ’

6-21-76 ,tfrder entered extending time to file record on appeal to and 
including August 11, 1976, (je)

'■Stipulation of parties filed,, (je)
vSertificate of Counsel for Appellants filed, (je) '

69
71
72-A
7473



t»S
n*

r|

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Freddie Eaton,Alphonse Creagh,) 
Warren Eaton, Levon Ohaston, ) 
Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, ) 
Lawson Hanney, Willie Stallworth,) 
Leroy Sims, Herman Blackman, Eari$ 
Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin and ) 
Roosevelt Hurd, Individually ) 
and on Behalf of other Similarly) 
Situated, )

)
Plaintiffs, )

)
vs. )

)
Courtaulds of North America, In- ) 
corporated; Textile Workers Union) 
of America; and Local 1465, )
Textile Workers Union of America,)

)
________________ Defendants .______ )

CIVIL ACTION NO. '?

COMPLAINT
COUNT 1 

I

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §|1331 

and 1343 (4); 42 U.S.C. § 2000 c-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 Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e ET SEQ., and for a declaratory judgement as to the rights estab­
lished under such legislation. Court is also invoked to secure protection 
of and to redress deprivation . 0f rights secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §| 2000e 

et seq., providing for injunctive and other relief against racial dis- 
crimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. a 1981, providing for the
equal rights of all persons in every state and territory of the Unites States

I
Jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. g 151 et 
seq., based on violations of the duty of fair representation owed to 
plaintiff and the class he represents.

II
CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs brings this action on their behalf and on behalf of other

1 ;



-  2 -

persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (2) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiff represents is com­
posed of Negro persons who are employed, or might be employed, by Court- 
aulds of North America at its LeMoyne Plant located in Mobile, Alabama 
and who are members or might become members, of the Textile Workers Union 
of America and Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of America, who have 
been and continue to be or might be adversely affected by the law and 
fact affecting the rights of the members of this class are, and continue 
to be limited, classified and discriminated 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 relief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately re­
presented by plaintiff. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds 
generally applicable to the class. The class plaintiffs represent is 
composed of Black workers who have been, continue to be and who in the 
future will be denied equal employment opportunities by the defendants on 
the grounds of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964.

Ill
Declaratory Judgement

This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to plaintiff's 
rights and for a preliminary and permanent injunction, restraining defend­
ants from maintarnilg a policy, practice, custom or usage of: (a) discrim­
inating against plaintiff and other Negro persons similarly situated be­
cause of race or color with respect to compensation, terms, conditions 
and privileges of employment and (b) limiting, segregating and classifying 
employees of defendant company and who are members of defendant Local 1465, 
Textile Workers Union of America and Textile Workers Union of America in 
ways which deprive plaintiff and other Negro persons in this class of 
equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status 
as employees or members because of race in violation of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IV
Plaintiffs

(A) Plaintiff Freddie Eaton is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Eaton is and 

has been employed by defendant company at its Le Moyne Plant in Mobile 

County, Alabama and is a member in good.^standing of defendant union.



(B) Defendant Company is a corporation licensed to do business in 
the state of Alabama, and the County of Mobile and in other states in 
the Textile Industry inter alia the manufacture and production of nylon 
filament for sale and distribution in interstate commerce. The company 
operates and maintains a plant and offices in Mobile County and is an em­
ployer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b) in that the company

is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employs at least twenty- 
five persons. At the LeMoyne facility alone, the company employs in ex­
cess of 25 persons.

(C) Defendant Local 1465 Textile Workers Union of America and 
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization within.the mean- ■ 
ingof 42'U.S.C.§ § 2000e (d) and (c) in that Local 1415, Textile Workers 
Union of America, and Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organiz­
ation engaged in an industry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or
in part, for the purpose of dealing with the defendant company concerning 
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms 
or conditions of employment of the production and maintenance employees 
of the Company at its plants and other facilities in various cities and 
states throughout the United States, including employees of the Company's 
plants and other facilities in and around the County of Mobile in the 
State of Alabama. The Textile Workers Union of America has more than 
twenty-five members.

VI
Basis for The Claim

(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, conditions 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 bargaining agreements entered into between the defendant 
Labor organizations and the Company and/or local supplemental agreements 
(hereinafter referred to as "agreements") entered into between Local 1465 
and Company. Defendant company is engaged in acts, policies and practices 
that limit, classify and otherwise discriminates against its Negro employees 
in way phat deprive or tend to deprive them of equal employment opport- 
unites^or adversely affect their compensation, terms, conditions and 
privileges of employment because of their race. These acts, policies and 
practices include but are not limited to the following:

3



it

(L) Under and pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid mentioned 
agreements, the defendants have established a promotional 
and seniority system, the design, intent and purpose of 
which is tocontinue and presence, and which has the effect 
of continuing and preserving, the defendant's policy, practice, 
custom and usage of limiting the employment and promotion­
al opportunity of plaintiff and other Negroes similarly 
situated.

(2) Defendant Company restricts and limits the compensation, 
terms, conditions, and privileges of plaintiffs and other 
Negroes similarly situated through the use of unvalidated 
/premployment tests! in violation of Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act” of 1964. The Plaintiffs were, based upon in­
valid and on information and belief, illegal, tests classfied 
by defendant company upon employment as either laborers
or janitors. Both of these classifications are within the 
same "dead end line of progression.

(3) Plaintiffs, and other Negroes similarly situated, are 
further discriminated against in that defendants main­
tain jointly and severally segregated job classifica-

-------- tioTta and~lines—of— progression based on race which dis­
crimination is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act in that it denies plaintiff and other Negroes 
similarly situated equal employment opportunities as to 
promotion, lav-off, termination and other employment opport­
unities based on classification, department or section 
Thus, Negro employees assigned to the Laborer classfication 
who seek inter-departmental transfer lose all seniority upon 
such transfer.

(4) Defendant company denies plaintiff, and those Negroes simil­
arly situated,_equal employment opportunities in violation 
of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing and 
refusing to permit plaintiffs and members of their class
to participate equally in its Appre.nX.i ceship Training^Pro- 
gram. Participation in aforesaid "Apprenticeship1' Program 
is based inter alia, on the following criteria:

A) passage of unvalidated tests;
B) high school diploma
C) under 25 years of age.

(5) Plaintiffs, on information and belief, allege that defend­
ant company maintains physically separated locker and 
shower facilities, racks which are used on a racially sep­
arated basis.

VII
Defendant Local 1465, with the cooperation, acquiescense and/or 

approval of the defendant Textile Workers Union of America, has entered 
into collective bargaining agreements with defendants company which 
contains provisions that establish, authorize, agree to and perpetuate 
the discrimination acts and practices set forth in Paragraph VI, supra 
and which jeopardize the jobs of and tend to deprive the said Negro 
worker of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect 

their status as employees because of race and color.
IX

(A) Neither the defendant Company nor the labor union has made 
any efforts or attempts since at least January 27, 1967 to correct.

o  -V



5

i

(

modify, or disavow Che policy, practice, design or purpose perpetua­
ted in the discriminatory agreement of November 4, 1970.

(B) All of the practice herein alleged are continuing up to the 
present time. The way in which the lines of progression, methods of 
hiring and apprenticeship requirements are presently structured is in­

tended to discriminate, and has the effect of discriminating, against 
plaintiff and the class he represents.

X

Plaintiff and the class he represents is qualified for promotions 
on the same basis as such opportunities are provided for white employees.

XI

Administrative Proceedings LeFlore EEOC

On January 27, 1967 within ninety (90) days of the occurrence of 
the acts of which they complain, plaintiffs 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. on May 4, 1970 the commission 
found reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed a vio­
lation of the Act. (A copy of which is attached hereto and made a part 
hereto as exhibit "A").

On or about April 9, 1971 plaintiffs were advised that defendants' 
compliance with Title VII had not been accomplished within the period 
allowed to the Commission by Title VII and that he was entitled to in­
stitute a civil action in the appropriate Federal District Court within 
thirty (30) days of receipt of said letter. (Copies of which are 
attached hereto and made a part hereof as exhibits 1-13).

A. Neither the State of Alabama nor the City of Mobile has a law 
prohibiting the unlawful employment practices alleged herein.

Count II

Duty of fair Representation

Plaintiff does hereby incorporate and adopt by reference all of 
the allegations set forth in Paragraph I through XI of Count I of 
Count I of this Complaint.

D



" ' -■» —■...■i.i.nW .

S'. " N
-  6 -

XIII
At all times material herein Local 1465 and the Textile Workers 

Union of America have been the certified recognized representative under the 
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et. seq., of the plaintiffs 
and the class they represent and, as such, have the duty, under the 
National Labor Relations Act, to act impartially and to fairly 
represent the interests of plaintiffs and the class they represent.

XIV
Defendants Textile Workers Union of America and Local 1465 

have violated and continue to violate their duty of fair representation 
owed to plaintiffs and all members of their class, imposed on them by the 
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. ii 151 et. seq., in that 
they have acquiesced authorized, agreed and/ or joined in the unlawful 
and discriminatory practices and policies complained of in Paragraphs 
VI, VII, VIII and IX, and they have failed to negotiate or attempt 
to negotiate the elimination of such policies and practices. The Company 
has knowingly participated in or acquiesced in said violation of the 
duty of fair representation.

XV
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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 
securing adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are 
now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from 
the defendants' policies, practices, customs and usages as set forth 
herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court will advance 
this case on the docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practi­
cable time, cause this case to be in every way expedited and upon such

6



LJ- . ....

- 7 -

hearing to:
1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a declaratory 

judgment that the actions of defendants complained of herein violate the 
rights of plaintiffs and the class they represent guaranteed by Title 1 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the National Labor Relations 

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.
2. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a preliminary 

and permanent injunction enjoining lthe defendants, their agents, 
successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them and 
at their discretion from engaging in the policies and practices com­
plained of herein in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964; and the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 e* seq.

3. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and 
further relief as may be necessary, including back pay to those plaintiffs 
and/ or members of the class shown to be entitled to such relief.

4. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, together with reasonable 
attorneys' fees as provided in Section 706 (K) of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-5(k).

Respectfully submitted,

J L jL lA. J. Cooper, Jr.
Frankie Fields Smith 
Crawford, Fields and Cooper 
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama

1 0 137’



BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT O rf.CE
<* >

S' -AA >'-•A, it EQUAL E?v;p
S. :

' V  «<

& R  7 1971
NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-3UE 

WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Levon Thornton 
1911 Eoline Street 
Mobile, Alabama 36617

•.OYMHNT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 6TH AVfcNUc, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35202

7 ’
!'■ r<. 4/

/

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-152 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeKoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Thornton:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letuer, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

8
c3 & S L



r
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

* *  7 ign

2121 8TH AVENUE. NORTH 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Lamar Hill
i nr:-i -cij-j.-, c;{-raol-

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10—146 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Mobile, Alabama 36617 

Dear Mr. Hill:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance v/ith Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in tne appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security.^ If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request tnat a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Jr

9



% *
\ /

?977

EQUAL
)

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

ErviPLOYMEIM!' OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
212! ETH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

k

NOTICE OP RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Willie Sullivan 
804 Cedar Street 
Caralanu, Alabama

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-151 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

* . advise you that the Commission has been unable to
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant, to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
tn«t you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this
District1? ^ 1^ 6!?1^ 1 aCtion in the appropriate Federal 
„ -ourt. if you are unable to retain an attorney, the
Federal Court is authorised in its discretion, to a p p o S  an
Sf repr s:nt yOU and authorize the
O f  uhe suit Without payment of fees, costs or securitv. If
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance

this with the Commission d e t e S n a W o n
, . . u ê.Lj.e/e litis VII has been VTola*-^d

-  the^place
Federal District Judge appoint 3

™ aw feel f r e e  ^  c c n t a c t  t h i s  o f f i c 'e  O f  the Commission i f  *ou hclVt; &-ny questions about t h i s  matter.

10



BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

9

'% ^ R  7 1971

OPPORTUNITY
2121 8TH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Lawson Harvey
*1 *5 OQ ▼ "1 Ax r<cv nii o.
Mobile, Alabama

Dear Mr. Harvey:

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-145 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court.. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit witho’ut payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free- to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Sincere!

Thoina s McP herson, Jr. 
Director

1 1



W y  o»v

' ^ j

rnHr. * IT‘»
t« v i(W / \ U  (- .il l

»7y
NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 

WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Willie Stallworth 
1900 Luckie Avenue

^ A
)

m  / -.v i -\r>tv-» D T U M  * T  V  O M
4 i-w I IMU.H t v .  < V A i  P l i i  i 1 vyOi/l iVJ IJO lU iS

212: GTH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIR/.VNGiiAV., ALABAMA 25202

SiR W IfC-hW  DISTRICT OFFICE
F o

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI6S-10-15C 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc. 
LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile Workers 
Union of America 

Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Stallworth:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case. .

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of -ho Act, you arc hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil1 action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place
V 71*13’  ‘~2 ---rV _  H . L —hjC .‘wl Ct .i. _  - „ ~ .>T«T» OCCGLE ± 1 z z L  7  cI aa-u  J ^ c i f c ; v -  ~Z-! l :J .  - n’

Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if- 
you have any questions about this matter.

1 2



3- - V* » >
-% f 5

s, ^  - /CV, 4**

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE
J-’OIM? ira/t-M A V M M U 1*i-v, w 7\L UiWi L J i i f i u i l i

«*R 7

w . . o r -  i Uiva« i t u O P / i iy j ib b ;U i ‘]
2121 8TH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

£ 7

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Leroy Sims 
417 Devon Drive 
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI63-10-143 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Sims:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance v/ith Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of■reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the^Federal District Court nearest to the place, 
whete the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
1ederal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feer rree to contact this office of the Coamission if 
you have, any questions about this matter.

13



«$* %
s |
V'V&tf /

V . ,v

EQUAL

APR 7 1971
NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 

WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

\

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 8TH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

?. U * . / c

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-140 

Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America

Mr. Herman Blackmon 
612 Wellington Street 
Mobile, Alabama

Sc.tsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Blackmon:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant, to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of rhis 
letter,, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you deciue to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you. may taxo this letter, atone? with the Comm*? q?ion dotc.rrr*ina; *, 
cf reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where ana alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

14
i



*

* , fifh . V 

!.. vV£T<? /
\,n «'■’'■

v / ')
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 8.H AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

A //

APR 7 vn
NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 

WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED NAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Earl Lee Eaton 
1 2 0 ® Pnd 1 T o a d  Stiirssfc 
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-141 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, In 

LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile Workers 
Union of America 
Sai.suma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Eaton:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act cf 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause tc believe Title VII has been violated,
C\.j C i  0  C .jC C — C l  l-z: 17 Ci vl.ITci 1 
where the alleged discriminal 
Federal District Judge appcin

... A. - . 2  jl.  ._ . . - .  j_     j  , i — 1
... U-a. _k.V_.l_ u  U .L  L. JL c- V -O  u t i v

ion occurred, and request that a 
t counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

1 bJL <J
33a



BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE,;E rr>, \
o I

'̂ -rr APR 7 jgjy

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 BTH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF F.IGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William Goodv.’in 
243 Truman Drive 
Pric'nara, Alabama 366iu

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-144 
Alphonse Creagh, et ai 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Goodwin:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1364 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe TJ.•• io VI 7̂  has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place

, 1 I ̂  ̂  ̂  A A - -- - - '
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.



$ i'-'O'- ...»

A - / - A

‘»«rr o°*
APR 7 197!

POJIAI ir̂ -'V:'l AV; ir  !-,- Ar'AA. A—mn-rir ti rtrA1/> . ■
■ - - . - a- . - .  u . i i ,  o i i . i L i i i  Or i o.'v i uim11 .  c . o i v ' i i V i iSSION

2 i2 i s t ; i AVENUE. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

NOTICE OF PIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 FAYS

CERTIFIED .MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Roosevelt Hurd 
2464 Pine Tree Drive 
Mobile," Alabama

Dear Mr. Hurd:

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-147 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc,
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance wi Ah Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of i-he Act, you are hereby notified 
thac. you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
Tetter, institute civil accion in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an

r®J?resen"f' y°u an<3 to authorize the commencement 
of tne suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide^to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determinationOX* V* ^ S O ̂ r* llO 2. ̂ G;uicn 4- ✓-*. "U./'n T j.  i * t t t t  i_. _  _
, ~ w — v_. * v n  i i a .13 î eeii ViOa-cicea,
to tne clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
Wi.ere t. e alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Feaerai District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

1 n



^Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 2

d e c i s i o n ? 0  799
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer is engaged 
in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by affording Negroes less 
favorable employment opportunities than other employees because 
of their race, by denying Negroes the opportunity to partici- • 
pate in the Company's Apprenticeship Training Program because 
of their race, and by maintaining facilities segreg ited by 
race.

Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer an l Respondent 
Union jointly and severally are engaged in unlawful employment 
practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 196c-, by maintaining lines of progression and job classifica­
tions segregated by race. ~ ' — '

JURISDICTION

Respondent Employer is engaged in the manufacture and production 
of nylon filament for sale and distribution in interstate 
commerce. It employs approximately 980 persons, of whom 88 
are Negroes, at its Mobile facility.

Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning 
of Section 701 (d) and (e) of the Act. It is the collective 
bargaining agent for Respondent Employer's production and 
maintenance employees.

The charges were filed within the time prescribed in Section 
706 (d) of the Act.

18



Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Ncs. SI5S-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 3

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer restricts 
Negro employment opportunities through the use of a pre- 
employment test.

Investigation revealed that Charging Parties were originally 
classified upon employment by Respondent Employer as either 
laborers or janitors. Beth of these classificatiom are 
within the same "dead-end" line of progression. At the time 
of application for employment, their qualifications were deter­
mined cn the basis of scores on the Kopas Test Batterv. Respon­
dent Erplcyer asserts that the Kopas Test Battery i; nor.-discrimi- 
natory,

The Commission has observed and it is known to the business 
community.!/ that, when used as a pre-employment sen ening 
device, this test results in the rejection of a dis] roportionate 
number of job applicants who are members of minority groups. The 
Commission has consistently held that the use of such a test is 
an unlawful employment practice unless it appears tl at it is 
validly related to the successful performance of the specific 
job or jobs for which it is used. Thus, ail employment tests, 
including the Kopas Test Battery, must be validated against 
the job for which they are a prerequisite.

1/ Cocper & Sobol, Seniority Testing Under Fair Smi lovment 
Lavs: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring
anc. Promotion, 82 Karv. L. Rev. 15S8 (1969); Note, Legal 
Implications of the Use of Standardized Ability Tests in 
Employment and Education, 68 Colum. L. Rev. 691 (1968); 
National Association of Manufacturers and Plans for Progress, 
Equal Employment Opportunity: Compliance and A ;firmative
Action Ch. IV, at 41-56 (1969); Kirkpatrick, Swin, Barrett 
and Katzell, Fairness and Validity of Personnel Tests for 
Different Ethnic Groups, New York university Pr b s s  (1968).

19



Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 4

The validity must be demonstrated, not assumed, and periodically-^/ 
must be validated for, and related to, such job, employer, and 
geographical location to which they are to be applied. It 
must, of course, also be validated for the potential work 
force which, in Respondent Employer's case, means Negroes 
as well as Caucasians. The evidence of record reveals that 
Respondent Employer uses a test composed of sectiors intended 
to test both verbal general intelligence and mechanical aptitude 
in an attempt to measure applicants1 abilities to perform 
semi-skilled and unskilled jobs.

Respondent E:mployer_does not represent that its pre-employment 
test /Kopas Battery/has been validated. According]y, Respondent 
Employer's use of an unvalidated test is, in these circum­
stances, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964.

With respect to Charging Parties allegation that Respondent 
Employer and Respondent Union jointly and severally discriminate 
against Negroes by maintaining job classifications and lines 
of progression segregated by race, the record dsmor strates 
that Negro, employees occupy job classifications segregated 
by race /Laborer and Janitor/and are placed in segregated 
lines of progression. Seniority for promotion, transfer, 
lay-off and other employment opportunities is basec upon classi­
fication and department or section. Thus. Negro employees 
assigned to the Laborer classification who seek inter-depart­
mental transfer lose all seniority upon such transfer. It is 
now well settled that such a seniority system is not "bona fide" 
within the meaning of section 703 (h) of the Act.

2/ Respondent's test was prepared 20 years ago and has under­
gone no material changes since that time. The record is 
silent concerning whether, and to what extent, reevaluation 
or validation studies have been undertaken during those 
years.

2 0



fCourtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 5

Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc., 279 F. Supp 505(E.D. Va 1968); 
Local 189, United Paper-makers and Paperworkers and Crown 
Zellerback Corporation v. U .S ., 416 F.2d 980 (5th Cir.1969),
cert, denied, ______ U.S._____ , 38 U.S.L.W. 3315 (U.S. Feb. 24,
1970). Investigation also revealed that of the twenty-seven 
employees now working as apprentices at Respondent's Mobile 
facility, all are Caucasians. Respondent Employer contends 
that this is not the result of discriminatory' practices on 
its part, but rather disinterest on the part of Negro employees. 
Respondent cites the fact that none of the Charging Parties 
applied for the apprenticeship program, and further, that of 
sixty-one applicants, none is Negro. Charging Parties assert 
that because of the requirements imposed by Respondent Employer 
it would be a "futile gesture" to apply.

Under Respondent Employer's collective bargaining agreement, 
the criteria for eligibility for the apprenticeship program 
are as follows;

1. A high school diploma.

2. Under 25 years of age.

3. Physically and mentally qualified to do the work 
of the trade.

4. Passage of such mechanical aptitude or personnel 
tests as may be designated by the Company.

5. Meet all general employment requirements of the 
Company.

It is apparent that Negroes who apply for an apprenticeship 
must pass the Company's Kopas Test Battery. Thus, a Negro 
who has been placed in the Labor section because of his Kopas 
Test scores has a minimal chance of meeting Respondent Employer's 
apprenticeship test requirement. This fact was well known to 
the Negro employees, as mentioned above.



)

Courtaulds North America, Inc. Page 6
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI-10-154E

Accordingly, we must credit the allegation that Respondent 
Employer discriminates against its Negro employees by denying 
them equal opportunity to participate in its Apprenticeship 
Training Program because of their race.

With respect to the charges that Respondent Employer maintains 
segregated facilities, evidence of record shows that Respondent 
Employer maintains physically separated locker and slower 
facilities, dining areas, and time card racks which are used 
on a racially separated basis.

DECISION

Reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent Employer 
is engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by maintaining 
racially discriminatory pre-employment testing procedures, 
by denying Negroes an opportunity to participate in its 
Apprenticeship Training Program because of their race, and 
by maintaining facilities segregated by race.

Reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent Employer 
and Respondent Union jointly and severally are engaged in 
unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining lines of 
progression and job classifications segregated by race.

For the Commission:

Date
M A Y  141970



■rn
r  " \ V v A - .7

v . BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OEfICE

\ fte'-c.-j !
s'*®*4 /

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 8TH AVENUE, NORTH

%rr c®’
Apr  7 ^

'  $S7
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

In reply refer to:
NOTICE OF RIGHT—TO-SUE Case No. BI68-10-142

WITHIN 30 DAYS Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Freddie Eaton 
1429 Silver Drive 
Mobile, Alabama

Courtaulds of North America, Ins.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, .Textile W’orkers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Eaton:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retai.n an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this leeter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nea'-e^t to the place 
where r.he alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

23



P  -X
* . BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE )
• o l EQUAL EMFLOYME:IT OPPOETLvIITY CCiViMlSSION

W e v y 2121 8TH AVENUE. NORTH

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203
*PR 7

m

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUI 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alphonse Creagh 
Route 1, Box 118A 
Mt. Vernon, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-139 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Creagh

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Fedex'ai mi strict Judge appo5.nt counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

i> X k



f

9 f
\  /
V t ,

APR 7 m

ClRmlNGnrwYi DiSTriiCT OFFICE

CQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 6TH AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, AtABA/AA 35203

A n

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Warren Eaton
•303 C a t e  n A v e n u e  
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI63-10-143 

Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc. 
LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile Workers 
Union of America 
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Eaton:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
thau you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated,
t.o rj O r*;C o f  Vt 0 % 1 V) ■» y> ^ ̂  r. j. ju ̂  -j _ _
where tne alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federau District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of 
you have any questions about this matter.

the Commission if

25



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 
SOUTHERN DIVISION

U. S. DISTRICT COB IT  
SOU. DIST. ALA. 

FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
Freddie Eaton, Alphonse Creagh, ) 
Warren Eaton, Levon Thorton, )
Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, )
Lawson Harvey, Willie Stallworth,) 
Leroy Sims, Herman Blackmon, Earl) 
Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin and ) 
Roosevelt Hurd, Individually )
and on Behalf of other Similarly ) 
Situated, )

)
Plaintiffs, )

)
vs. )

)
Courtaulds of North America, In- ) 
corporated; Textile Workers Union) 
of America; and Local 1465, )
Textile Workers Union of America,)

)
________________Defendants ■_______ )

MAY 13 1971
WILLIAM J. O'CONNO?.

CLERK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6648-71T

AMENDED COMPLAINT 
COUNT 1

I

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 

and 1343 (4); 42 U.S.C. § 2000 c-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 Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. 
§§ 2000e et seq., and for a declaratory judgement as to the rights estab­
lished under such legislation. The jurisdiction of this Court is also
invoked to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rightsi
secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., providing for injunctive and

• jI 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 of the United States. Jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked



2r •

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. g 151 et seq., based on violations of the duty of fair 
representation owed to plaintiff and the class he represents.
CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs brings this action on their behalf and on behalf of other 
persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiff represents is composed of 
Negro persons who are employed, or might be employed, by Courtaulds of 
North America at its LeMoyne Plant located in Mobile, Alabama and who are 
members or might become members, of the Textile Workers Union, of America, 
who have been and continue to be or might be adversely affected by the law 
and fact affecting the rights of the members of this class are, and continue 
to be limited, classified and discriminated 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 relief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately re­
presented by plaintiff. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds 
generally applicable to the class. The class plaintiffs represent is com­
posed of Black workers who have been, continue to be and who in the future 
will be denied equal employment opportunities by the defendants on the grounds 
of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Declaratory Judgement

This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to plaintiff's rights 
and for a preliminary and permanent injunction, restraining defendants from 
maintaining a policy, practice, customs or usage ofr (a) discriminating against 
plaintiff and other Negro persons similarly situated because of race or color 
with respect to compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment 
and (b) limiting, segregating and classifying employees of defendant company 
and who are members of defendant Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of America 
and Textile Workers Union of America in ways which deprive plaintiff and other 
Negro persons in this class of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

II

III



adversely affect their status as employees or members because of race in 
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IV
Plaintiffs

(A) Plaintiff Freddie Eaton is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Eaton is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(B) Plaintiff Alphonse Creagh is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Creagh is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(C) Plaintiff Warren Eaton is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Eaton is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(D) Plaintiff Lenon Thorton is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Thorton is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(E) Plaintiff Lamar Hill is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Hill is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in godd standing of defendant union.

(F) Plaintiff Willie Sullivan is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Sullivan is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(G) Plaintiff Lawson Harvey is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Harvey is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plaint in Mobile 

County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.
(H) Plaintiff Willie Stallworth is a Negro citizen of the United States



4

and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Stallworth is 
and has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(I) Plaintiff Leroy Sims is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Sims is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County. Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(J) Plaintiff Hernon Blackmon is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Blackmon is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(K) Plaintiff Earl Lee Eaton is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Eaton is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is member in good standing of defendant union.

(L) Plaintiff William Goodwin is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Goodwin is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

(M) Plaintiff Roosevelt Hurd is a Negro citizen of the United States 
and a resident of Mobile in the State of Alabama. Plaintiff Hurd is and 
has been employed by defendant company at its LeMoyne Plant in Mobile 
County, Alabama and is a member in good standing of defendant union.

V

(A) Defendant Company is a corporation licensed to do business in 
the state of Alabama, and the County of Mobile and in other states in 
the Textile Industry inter alia the manufacture and production of nylon 
filament for sale and distribution in interstate commerce. The company 
operates and maintains a plant and offices in Mobile County and is an em­
ployer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b) in that the company is 
engaged in an industry affecting ccumeif# and employs at least twentyfive
persons. At the LeMoyne facility alone, the company employs in excess of 
twentyfive persons.

(B) Defendant Local 1465 Textile Workers Union of America and Textile



5~\

Workers Union of America is a labor organization within the meaning of 

42 U.S.C. gg 2000e (d) and (c) in that Local 1415, Textile Workers Union 
of America, and Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization 
engaged in an industry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or in part, 
for the purpose of dealing with the defendant company concerning grievances, 
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms or conditions 
of employment of the production and maintenance employees of the Company 
at its plants and other facilities in various cities and states throughout 
the United States, including employees of the Company's plants and other 
facilities in and around the County of Mobile in the State of Alabama. The 
Textile Workers Union of America has more than twentyfive members.

VI
Basis for The Claim

(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, conditions 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 bargaining agreements entered into between the defendant labor 
organizations and the Company and/or local supplemental agreements (hereinafter 
referred to as "agreements") entered into between Local 1465 and Company. 
Defendant company is engaged in acts, policies and practices that limit, 
classify and otherwise discriminates against its Negro employees in way 
that deprive or tend to deprive them of equal employment opportunities or 
adversely affect thei?~compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of 
employment because of their race. These acts, policies and practices include
but are not limited to the following:

(1) Under and pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid mentioned 
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 defendant's policy, practice, custom and usage 
of limiting the .employment and promotional opportunity of plaintiff 
and other Negroes similarly situated.

(2) Defendant Company restricts and limits the compensation, terms, 
conditions, and privileges of plaintiffs and other Negroes sim­
ilarly situated"through the-.use. of"unvalidated preemployment 
tests in violation' of "Title "Vi I of the Civil Rights Act of 19£4..
The Plaintiffs were, based upon invalid and, on information and 
belief, illega,l__te_sts, classified by defendant company upon 
employment as either'Taborer's'Of " janitors'. Both of these classifi­
cations are within the same "dead end" line of progression.30 J/A



— ««■

- 6 -

Plaintiffs, and other Negroes similarly situated, are 
further discriminated against in that defendants main­
tain jointly and severally segregated job classifications 
and lines of progression based on race which discrimination 
is in-violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 
in that it denies plaintiff and other Negroes similarly 
situated equal employment opportunities as to promotion, 
lay-off, termination and other employment opportunities 
based on classification, department or section. Thus,
Negro employees assigned to the Laborer classification who 
seek inter-departmental transfer lose all seniority upon 
such transfer.
Defendant company denies plaintiff, and those Negroes simil­
arly situated, equal employment opportunities in violation 
of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing and 
refusing to permit plaintiffs and members of their class to 
participate equally in its Apprenticeship Training Program. 
Participation in aforesaid "Apprenticeship" Program is based 
inter alia, on the following criteria:

A) passage of unvalidated tests;
B) high school diploma
C) under 25 years of age.

Plaintiffs, on information and belief, allege that defend­
ant company maintains physically separated locker and 
shower facilities, racks which are used on a racially 
separated basis.

VII
Defendant Local 1465, with the cooperation, acquiescense and/or 

approval of the defendant Textile Workers Union of America, has entered 
into collective bargaining agreements with defendants company which 
contains provisions that establish, authorize, agree to and perpetuate 
the discrimination acts and practices set forth in Paragraph VI, supra 
and which jeopardize the jobs of and tend to deprive the said Negro 
workers of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect 
their status as employees because of race and color.

VIII
(A) Neither the defendant Company nor the labor union has made 

any efforts or attempts since at least-January 27, 1967 to correct, 
modify, or disavow the policy, practice, design or purpose perpetua­
ted in the discriminatory agreement of November 4, 1970.

(B) All of the practice herein alleged are continuing up to the 
present time. The way in which the lines of progression, methods of
hiring and apprenticeship-requirements are presently structured is in­
tended.-to- discriminate./ and has the effect of discriminating, against
plaintiff and the class he represents.

31

(3)

(4)

(5)



7

IX
Plaintiff and the class he represents is qualified for promotions 

on the same basis as such opportunities are provided for white employees.
X

Administrative Proceedings Before EEOC

On January 27, 1967 within ninety (90) days of the occurrence of 
the acts of which they complain, plaintiffs 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. On May 4, 1970 the commission 
found reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed a vio­
lation of the Act. (A copy of which is attached hereto, and made a part 
hereof as exhibit "A").

On or about April 9, 1971 plaintiffs were advised that defendants' 
compliance with Title VII had not been accomplished within the period 
allowed to the Commission by Title VII and that they were entitled to in­

stitute a civil action in the appropriate Federal District Court within 
thirty (30) days of receipt of said letter. (Copies of which are 
attached hereto and made a part hereof as exhibits 1-13).

A. Neither the State of Alabama nor the City of Mobile has a law 
prohibiting the unlawful employment practices alleged herein.

COUNT II
DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff does hereby incorporate and adopt by reference all of 
the allegations set forth in Paragraph I through X of Count I of this 
Complaint.

XI
At all times material herein Local 1465 and the Textile Workers 

Union of America have been the certified recognized representative under the 
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.§151 et seq., of the plaintiffs 
and the class they represent and, as such, have the duty, under the 
National Labor Relations Act, to act impartially and to fairly represent 
the interests of plaintiffs and the class they represent.

^ 3 ^



.-"s
8

XII
Defendants Textile Workers Union of America and Local 1465 

have violated and continue to violate their duty of fair representation 
owed to plaintiffs and all members of their class, imposed on them by the 
National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., in that they have 
acquiesced authorized, agreed and/or joined in the unlawful and discrimin­
atory practices and policies complained of in Paragraphs VI,VII,VIII, and IX, 
and they have failed to negotiate or attempt to negotiate the elimination 
of such policies and practices. The Company has knowingly participated in 
or acquiesced in said violation of the duty of fair representation.

XIII
Prayer for relief

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 securing 
adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are now suffer­
ing and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from the defendants' 
policies, practices, customs and usage as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court will advance 
this case on the docket, or a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable 
time, cause this case to be in every way expedited and upon such hearing 
to:

1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a Declaratory 
Judgment that the actions of defendants complained of herein violate the 
rights of plaintiffs and the class they represent guaranteed by Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the National Labor Relations 
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.

2. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a preliminary 
and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants, their agents, 
successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them 
and at their discretion from engaging in the policies and practices com­
plained of herein in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964; and the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.

3 3



9Q

3. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and 
further relief as may be necessary, including back pay to those plaintiffs 
and/or members of the class shown to be entitled to such relief.

4. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, together with reasonable 
attorneys' fees as provided in Section 706 (K) of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

Respectfully submitted.

A. J. Cooper, Jr."
Frankie Fields Smith 
Crawford, Fields and Cooper 
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama

34



\

j.> /'// £r.

jCourtaulds North America, Inc.
’case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 2

------ 70
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer is engaged 
in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by affording Negroes less 
favorable employment opportunities than other employees because 
of their race, by denying Negroes the opportunity to partici- •• 
pate in the Company1s Apprenticeship Training Program because 
of their race, and by maintaining facilities segregated by 
race.
Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer and Respondent 
Union jointly and severally are engaged in unlawful employment 
practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 196*, by maintaining lines of progression and job classifica­
tions segregated by race.
JURISDICTION
Respondent Employer is engaged in the manufacture aad production 
of nylon filament for sale and distribution in interstate 
commerce. It employs approximately 980 persons, of whom 88 
are Net roes, at its Mobile facility.
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning 
of Section 701 (d) and (e) of the Act. It is the collective 
bargaining agent for Respondent Employer's production and 
maintenance employees.
The charges were filed within the time prescribed in Section 
706 (d) of the Act.

35



Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Ca3 e Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 3

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
Charging Parties allege that Respondent Employer restricts 
Negro employment opportunities through the use of a pre­
employment test.
Investigation revealed, that Charging Parties were originally 
classified upon employment by Respondent Employer as either 
laborers or janitors. Both of these classifications are 
within the same "dead-end" line of progression. At the time 
of application for employment, their qualifications were deter­
mined on the basis of scores on the Kopas Test Battery. Respon­
dent Ere ployer asserts that the Kopas Test Battery ir non—discrimi' 
natory.
The Commission has observed and it is known to the business 
communityi/ that, when used as a pre—employment screening 
device, this test results in the rejection of a d.isj roportionate 
number of job applicants who are members of minoritj groups. The 
Commission has consistently held that the use of such a test is 
an unlcwful employment practice unless it appears that it is 
validly related to the successful performance of the specific 
job or jobs for which it is used. Thus, all employment tests, 
including the Kopas Test Battery, must be validated against 
the job for which they are a prerequisite.

1/ Cocper & Sobol, Seniority Testing Under Fair Employment 
Laws: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring
and Promotion, 82 Karv. L. Rev. 1598 (1969); Note, Legal 
Implications of the Use of Standardized Ability Tests in 
Employment and Education, 68 Coluin. L. Rev. 691 (1968); 
National Association of Manufacturers and Plans for Progress, 
Equal Employment Opportunity: Compliance and Affirmative
Action Ch. IV, at 41-56 (1969); Kirkpatrick, Ew.n, Barrett 
and Katzell, Fairness and Validity of Personnel Tests for 
Different Ethnic Groups, New York University Press (1968).

36



. Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Casa Nos. 3I68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 4

The validity must be demonstrated, not assumed, and periodically^/ 
must be validated for, and related to, such job, employer, and 
geographical location to which they are to be applied. It 
must, of course, also be validated for the potential work 
force which, in Respondent Employer's case, means Negroes 
as well as Caucasians. The evidence of record reveals that 
Respondent Employer uses a test composed of sections intended 
to test both verbal general intelligence and mechanical aptitude 
in an attempt to measure applicants' abilities to perform 
semi-skilled end unskilled jobs.
Respondent Employer_aoes not represent that its pre-employment 
test yKopas Battery/has been validated. Accordingly, Respondent 
Employer's use of an unvalidated test is, in these circum­
stances, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964.
With respect to Charging Parties allegation that Respondent 
Employer and Respondent Union jointly and severally discriminate 
against Negroes by maintaining job classifications and lines 
of progression segregated by race, the record demonstrates 
that Negro employees occupy job classifications segregated 
by race ^Laborer and Janitor/and are placed in segregated 
lines of progression. Seniority for promotion, transfer, 
lay-off and other employment opportunities is based upon classi­
fication and department or section. Thus, Negro employees 
assigned to the Laborer classification who seek inter-depart- 
mental transfer lose all seniority upon such transfer. It is 
now well settled that such a seniority system is not "bona fide" 
within the meaning of section 703 (h) of the Act.

2/ Respondent's test was prepared 20 years ago and has under­
gone no material changes since that time. The record is 
silent concerning whether, and to what extent, reevaluation 
or validation studies have been undertaken during those 
years.

37



'Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI68-10-154E

Page 5

Quarles v. Philip Morris. Inc., 279 F. Supp 505 (E.D. Va 1968); 
Local 189, United Papermakers and Paoerworkers and Crown 
Zellerback Corporation v. U .S .. 416 F.2d 980 (5th Cir.1969),
cert, denied, ______ U.S._____ , 38 U.S.L.W. 3315 (U.S. Feb. 24,
1970). Investigation also revealed that of the twenty-seven 
employees now working as apprentices at Respondent's Mobile 
facility, all are Caucasians. Respondent Employer contends 
that this is not the result of discriminatory practices on 
its part, but rather disinterest on the part of Negro employees. 
Respondent cites the fact that none of the Charging Parties 
applied for the apprenticeship program, and further, that of 
sixty-one applicants, none is Negro. Charging Parties assert 
that because of the requirements imposed by Respondent Employer 
it would be a "futile gesture" to apply.
Under Respondent Employer's collective bargaining agreement, 
the criteria for eligibility for the apprenticeship program 
are as follows:

1. A high school diploma.
2. . Under 25 years of age.
3. Physically and mentally qualified to do the work 

of the trade.
4. Passage of such mechanical aptitude or personnel 

tests as may be designated by the Company.
5. Meet all general employment requirements of the 

Company.
It is apparent that Negroes who apply for an apprenticeship 
must pass the Company's Kopas Test Battery. Thus, a Negro 
who has been placed in the Labor section because of his Kopas 
Test scores has a minimal chance of meeting Respondent Employer's 
apprenticeship test requirement. This fact was well known to 
the Negro employees, as mentioned above.

38



Courtaulds North America, Inc.
Case Nos. BI68-10-139E Thru BI-10-154E

Page 6

Accordingly, we must credit the allegation that Respondent 
Employer discriminates against its Negro employees by denying 
them equal opportunity to participate in its Apprenticeship 
Training Program because of their race.
With respect to the charges that Respondent Employer maintains 
segregated facilities, evidence of record shows that Respondent 
Employe.': maintains physically separated locker and shower 
facilities, dining areas, and time card racks which are used 
on a racially separated basis.
DECISION
Reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent Employer 
is engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by maintaining 
racially discriminatory pre-employment testing procedures, 
by denying Negroes an opportunity to participate in its 
Apprenticeship Training Program because of their race, and 
by maintaining facilities segregated by race.
Reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent Employer . 
and Respondent Union jointly and severally are engaged in 
unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining lines of 
progression and job classifications segregated by race.

For the Commission:

\

Date





E x  9-x
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

\ 2121 8TH AVENUE, NORTH 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

**» C5
NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 

WITHIN 30 DAYS
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 

RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alphonse Creagh

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-139 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
v s
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Route 1, Box 118A 
Mt. Vernon, Alabama

Dear Mr. Creagh

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1064 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

D i r e c t o r

41



P. f f . 3

9 A u ? \ / 
\ ,  ̂

APR 7 1S5J'

SIRMIMGIIAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 STH AVENUE. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OP RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Warren Eaton
602 Cr.Lci'i Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI63-10-143 

Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc. 
LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile Workers 
Union of America 
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Eaton:

T'nis is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement
or i.ne suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
cf reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
t.-. the y  cr-T: of the ̂ Federal District Court nearest to the place . 
where tr.e alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Thomas McPherson, Jr 
Director

42



BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 6TH AVtNGi, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-152 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
Lel-loyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Mr. Levon Thornton 
1311 Eoline Street 
Mobile, Alabama 36617
Dear Mr. Thornton:
This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorised in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letrer, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable causa to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and reguest that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Director

43



P Sr. s
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 8TH AVENUE. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF RIGKT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Lamar Hill 
1057 Etta Street

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-146 
Alphonse Creagh. et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Mobile, Alabama 36617 
Dear Mr. Hill:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
tnat you may, wj.thin thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
cf reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where m e  alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
iwcerai District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Director

<6>£sL-

44



S A  • U  8

BE ; 7 197?

BI RACING HAM DISTRICT OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 .VTH A VENUS. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OP RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mir. Willie Sullivan 
804 Cedar Street 
Saraland, Alabama
Dear Mr. Sullivan:

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-151 
Alphonse Creagh, et al vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

obtain vo? f 7 the Coimnlsslon has been unable toobtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of th° Civil
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
t W  you may Wlthin thirty (30) days of the receipt of th is  
District1"Stl^Ute °1V;Ll actlon ln hh*! appropriate Federal 
p^C??? o I"* y°U are unable to retain an attorney, the Federal. Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an
c T l Z T l  “  w .  to authorize th. « * £ £ £ ?of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determ ination 
°f ,XC °au*e to believa Title VII has been violated,
. bhe Federal District Court nearest to the placeu.ho alleged dis<
federal Di; occurre re quo sitrier Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

vonahavfeel free contact this office of the Commission if You have any questions about this matter.
Sincerely,

Thomas McPherson, Jr. 
Director



P . f y . 7
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

2121 6TH AVENUE, NORTH 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OP RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-145 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Mr. Lawson Harvey 
132S Doyle Avenue
Mobile, Alabama 
Dear Mr. Harvey:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may tahe this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.
Si'

Thomas McPherson, Jr 
Director

46



o«»WN?H/V. DISTRICT OFFICE

112: 8TH AVZ.M'JE. NORTH 
Bia.WNCiiAV, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE 0? RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Willie Stallworth 
1900 Luckie Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 3CS17

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-15C 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc. 
LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile Workers 
Union of America 

Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Stallworth:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case. .
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of Jio Act, you are'hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney' to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place
v.’iiT.,i mo "V.h- —•**r• occ uj j.' jv ̂  u. **«.!* x n-twai. rj

Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
F.1 onf;o feel free to contact tlM u office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

Thomas McPherson, Jr. 
Director-

47



f i & .  ?

2121 aih AVENUE. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE

T--R 7

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

NOTj.CE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
V7ITI-IIN 30 DAYS

Mr. Leroy Sims 
417 Devon Drive 
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI63-10-148 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeKoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

■ i

Dear Mr. Sims:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
o f •reasonable cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to roe Cierk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place, 
vnore the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
1 ederal District Judge ap>point counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

■mamas McPherson, J: 
Director

48



f Ex./t
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

2121 8TH AVENUE. NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM. ALABAMA 55203

BIRM1NGHAJA DISTRICT OFFICE

RPR 7 1371

NOTICE OP R1GHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-140 

Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vsCERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 

RECEIPT REQUESTED Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Batsuma, AlabamaMr. Herman Blackmon

612 Wellington Street 
Mobile, Alabama
Dear Mr. Blackmon:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.

Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 

Lhe suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Onmirn srion dctvzml.vrd 
of rer.sonnoio cause to believe Title VII has been violated, 
to the Clark of the Federal District Court nearest, to tho place 
where tha alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

■mamas McPherson, Jr 
Director



v ’-
r'~S. ""v

«-• .liJCllM/.t w i^iKiCt O rfICe

EQUAL EMPLOYEE:-!7’ OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 biH AVtNUc, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

f t

APS 7 C I l

NOTICE OP RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Earl Lee Eaton 
120R Railroad Street 
Mobile, Alabama

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-141 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc. 

LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama and 
Local # 1465, Textile ’Workers 
Union of America 
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Eaton:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Righto Act of 1964 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause tc believe Title VII has been violated,

v..i .c; v-* G a. twiti *.• i  r>. Li.' l e t  COil.Vu i l  C C* oT '2; L uG u h v  1 1 C C

where the alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.
Sincere!

Thorr.a s McP he r: 
Director

V

50

/



. .niGItAM u..>lRICi Oi rlCC
J O '

* VS"iV
c ,Vo/« s 
V '"Yb'̂

^  7 m

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 E1H AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OF RIGHT-TO-SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William Goodwin 
249 Truman Drive 
Prichard, Axabama 366xu

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-144 
Alphonse Creagh, et al 
vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Dear Mr. Goodwin:

This is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned case.
Pursuant to Section 706(e) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
that you may, within thirty (30) days of the x-eceipt of this 
letter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
District Court. If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 
Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of the suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
you may take this letter, along with the Commission determination 
of reasonable cause to believe Ti. :.o VII,-has been violated, 
to the Clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
where, the alleged diccrim: nation occurred, and request that a 
Federal District Judge appoint, counsel to represent you.
Please feel free to contcict this office of the Commission if 
you have any questions about this matter.

51



'' ■■
$ fs  !

"«»rr *°f
m  7 7977

m ..<UHOIIAM LHSIlilCT OfFcCE

EQUAL EM. LCV./,!_■( i OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2121 6T1I AVENJE. NORTH 

BIR.ViNGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

NOTICE OP PIGHT-TO--SUE 
WITHIN 30 DAYS

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 
RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Roosevelt Hurd 
2464 Pine Tree Drive 
Mobile, Alabama
Dear Mr. Hurd:

In reply refer to:
Case No. BI68-10-147 
Alphonse Creagh, et al vs
Courtaulds North America, Inc.
LeMoyne Plant
Mobile, Alabama and
Local # 1465, Textile Workers
Union of America
Satsuma, Alabama

Tnrs.is to advise you that the Commission has been unable to 
obtain voluntary compliance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 in the captioned casn.
Pursuant to Section 700(c) of the Act, you are hereby notified 
tha^ you may, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this 
etter, institute civil action in the appropriate Federal 
isx.net Court; If you are unable to retain an attorney, the 

Federal Court is authorized in its discretion, to appoint an 
attorney to represent you and to authorize the commencement 
of une suit without payment of fees, costs or security. If 
you decide to institute suit and find you need such assistance, 
lou may tar.e this letter, along with the Commission determination
to r r * T  v *  r U f° t0 5selicv'* *iLXc VX T  b e e n  violated,o u .  clerk of the Federal District Court nearest to the place 
wne/.e t. e alleged discrimination occurred, and request that a 
l’euera_ District Judge appoint counsel to represent you.

Please feel free to contact this office of the Commission if 
yod have any questions about this matter.
Sincerelv,

Thoma3 KcPhe r son, Jr• 
Director

52



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al., )
Plaintiffs

v.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
) 6648-71-T

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., et al..

Defendants

)

)

)

A N S W E R

Comes defendant. Textile Workers Union of America, 
AFL-CIO, and for answer to the complaint herein says:

FIRST DEFENSE
The claims set forth in the complaint fail to state 

a claim against this defendant upon which relief can be granted. 
SECOND DEFENSE

The claims set forth in the complaint are barred by 
the statute of limitations.

THIRD DEFENSE
The claims set forth in the complaint are barred by

laches.
FOURTH DEFENSE

The claims relating to alleged duty of fair 
representation lie within the preemptive and exclusive 
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

I

i
ii

i
6 U 7/*



r n

-  2 -

FIFTH DEFENSE
This defendant was not a charged party before 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission prior to 

instigation of this suit.
SIXTH DEFENSE

As to the complaint and each count thereof, 
separately and severally, the defendant pleads the general 
issue, denying each and every allegation therein and de­

manding strict proof thereof.
PATRICIA EAMES, GENERAL COUNSEL 
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, 

AFL-CIO
99 University Place 
New York, New York
BENJ. L. ERDREICH 
COOPER, MITCH & CRAWFORD 
409 North 21st Street 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

B y  L BENJ. L. ERDREICH
ATTORNEYS FOR TEXTILE WORKERS 
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Certificate of Service
/ M  l— -

I certify that I have thl3 J_____  day
of i.--(■>'____, __, served a
copy of the fcrâ oln,? on ooviisel for 
all parties to this proceeding by nailing 
a copypropsrly alaroispd and postage paid.

COOPER, MITCH & CRAWFORD

6±



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al, 
Plaintiffs

-v-
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., et al.,

Defendants.

C' c
'%'0 £--Sr Co,,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
6648-71-T

°cr i , 0
IS?;

o?Co,

A N S W E R
Comes now Defendant, Local 1465, Textile Workers Union 

of America, AFL-CIO, and for answer to the complaint herein says:
FIRST DEFENSE

The claims set forth in the complaint fail to state a 
claim against this defendant upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

The claims set forth in the complaint are barred by 

the statute of limitations.

THIRD DEFENSE
The claims set forth in the complaint are barred by

laches.

FOURTH DEFENSE
The claims relating to alleged duty of fair representation 

lie within the preemptive and exclusive jurisdiction of the National 

Labor Relations Board.
FIFTH DEFENSE

This defendant was not a charged party before the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission prior to instigation of this suit. 

Dated, October 11, 1971.
SIMON AND WOOD

c e r t i f i c a t e  O F

c: ’ity * *  I
3 V5i a C,?y Cl * 4 ^ 1 4  ,h4 "V Un- , -1

Otto E. Simon, Attorney for 
Local 1465, Textile Workers of 
America

62



0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al.,

Plaintiffs

vs. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA 
INC., et al.,

6648-71-T

Defendants.

NOTICE OF FILING 
OF AFFIDAVIT

--••Rlv
Comes now the defendant, Courtaulds North America, 

Inc., and files the attached affidavit of Donald C.

Smith, with the Exhibits therein described, in support of 

the pending motions previously filed herein by said 

defendants.

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 
foregoing notice has been served upon all attorneys of 
record by depositing a copy of same in the United States 
Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to said attorneys at their 
respective business addresses, on this, the - ̂  -'jday of 
November, 1971.

PAUL W. BROCK, Trial Attorney 
for said defendant

OF COUNSEL:

HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 3660136601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PAUL W. BROCK

63



> ' ^

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

6648-71-T
D ir- - A L '

FILED

■JtU L
A F F I D A V I T

Comes now Donald C. Smith, who, after first being 

duly sworn, does depose and say as follows:

I am Manager of Industrial Relations of Courtaulds 

North America, Inc., (called Courtaulds) and have been 

since 1961. I am familiar with the allegations of the 

complaint in the above case and of the motions filed on 

behalf of Courtaulds and make this affidavit in support 

of said motions.

Attached hereto, incorporated by reference as 

Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof are true copies of 

the charges filed by the plaintiffs in this cause against 

Courtaulds and served upon it by the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (called EEOC). Said charges 

were signed between June 15 and June 20, 1967. No other 

defendant in this cause was named in said charges and I 

am informed and believe and, based upon such information 
and belief, state that no other defendant in this cause 

has been named or designated in any charge made the basis 

of this action and filed with the EEOC.

64



- 2 -

The EEOC, through Mr. Willis T. Miree, Investigator, 

investigated these charges commencing in the summer of 1967 

and continuing through part of 1968. During this time, I 

gave to the EEOC data and information requested by it with 

reference to the plaintiffs and their work histories at 

Courtaulds. This data included various resumes and the 

Courtaulds1 seniority lists.

During this time, negotiations and discussions were 

held between Courtaulds and the EEOC with reference to dis­

posing of the issues raised by the charges filed by the 

plaintiffs, and meetings were held between Courtaulds and 

its legal counsel on the one hand and representatives of 

the EEOC on the other hand in Birmingham, Alabama, on or 

about January 27, 1971, and April 28, 1971, in an attempt 

to conciliate the pending problems. As an outgrowth of the 

meeting of January 27, Courtaulds submitted a proposed 

conciliation agreement on or about February 10, 1971, a 

true copy of which is attached as Exhibit "b ". Also 

attached hereto as Exhibits "C", "D" and "E", respectively, 

are the collective bargaining agreements between Courtaulds 

on the one hand and the co-defendants in this cause, Textile 

Workers Union of America and its Local Union Number 1465, 

said agreements being dated, respectively, July 2, 1964; 

October 26, 1967, and October 26, 1970. These agreements 

generally provide for promotion and progression by means 

of section seniority and the current agreement, that of 

October 26, 1970, reflects the existence of seven sections 

in the Rayon Plant and three sections in the Nylon Plant, 

with some 22 separate job classifications.

65



0
- 3 -

Courtaulds1 proposed conciliation agreement, Exhibit "B", 

would have substantially benefited plaintiffs and other black 

employees by providing plant seniority for such employees if 

they competed with other plant employees with reference to 

lay-off, recall, demotion or advancement in accordance with 

the provisions of Paragraph 10 of said agreement. Further, 

said proposed agreement provided that all tests would be 

validated and the validation studies submitted to the EEOC.

At the above-described meeting of April 28, 1971, the EEOC 

expressed its qualified approval of said proposed conciliation 

agreement.

Co-defendants (called TWA) also submitted a proposed 

conciliation agreement on or about March 25, 1971, a true 

copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit "F". The court will 

note that said agreement provides for replacing the seniority 

system called for by the collective bargaining agreements and 

for establishing plant seniority for black employees in the 

instances reflected in Paragraph 10. Further, said proposed 

agreement provides for the suspension of testing until such 

tests have been validated and the validation studies submitted 

to the EEOC.

Despite the progress of the conciliation efforts and 

the advantages and benefits offered to the members of the 

alleged class plaintiffs purport to represent, plaintiffs 

demanded the issuance of their "Right to Sue" letters, which 

the EEOC issued on or about April 7, 1971. Following this, 

and on or about May 10, 1971, this present action was 

commenced, thereby rejecting for practical purposes the 

benefits and advantages reflected in said proposals.

60



- 4 -

.J

I have made or have had made some investigation of 
this matter, and I am informed and believe and, based upon 
such information and belief, state that the members of the 
class the plaintiffs purport to represent were not informed 
of the above proposals, having in many instances not even 
been informed of the pending litigation, and have been and 
would be deprived of their rights to accept such proposed 
benefits by the aforesaid rejections by the named plaintiffs, 
with the necessary result that they have not and will not 
fairly and adequately protect the interests of said desig­

nated class.
With respect to the departments or sections in which 

the plaintiffs presently work,' they all are in the Rayon 
Plant, and are as follows: Warren Eaton is a Bale Press
Operator in the Spinning Section; Lawson Harvey has left 
the employment of Courtaulds but was, at the time of his 
voluntary departure on or about, to-wit, November 12, 1971, 
a Spinner and Cutter Operator in the Spinning Section;
Willie Sullivan is a Bale Press Operator in the Spinning 
Section; William Goodwin is a Filter Stripper in the 
Viscose Section; Willie Stallworth is a Bale Press Operator 
in the Spinning Section; Joe Lee Turner is a Storeroom Clerk 
in the Stores Section; Levon Thornton is an Oiler, which is 
a classified job; Leroy Sims is a Spinner and Cutter Operator 
in the Spinning Section; Roosevelt Hurd is a Fork-Lift 
Operator in the Viscose Section; Alphonse Creagh is a Bale 
Press Operator in the Spinning Section; Freddie Eaton is a 
Bale Press Operator in the Spinning Section; Hermon Blackmon

67



is a Pulp Feed Operator in the Viscose Section; Earl Eaton 
is a Bale Press Operator in the Spinning Section; Lamar Hill 
is a Storeroom Clerk in the Stores Section; Russell Warmack 
was a Laborer in the Labor Section, but has quit; Leo Sprivey, 
Jr., was a Bale Press Operator in the Spinning Section, but 

has quit.

DONALD C. SMITH

Subscribed and sworn to before 
me on this, the /(t day of November,
1 9 7 1 .

>7u:. A
NOTARY PUBLIC, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA

My Commission Expires: 7).*'; off



o , ,Z O -  _ - , 5 C a ..V-.i' .N.

’ hjvo ,, compi.iinl. fill in this iorm and mail it to me Equal
■ -m-monl Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your area
■ m 'n  Jjossihli*. It most lie mailed within 90 days after the dis- 

.n.itory act toes place. (See addresses on hack page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

This iorm is to he used only to tile a charge o( discrimination ha-
on RACE. COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No,
a/0 /-/ ■' ;.•> x-
o No. / -

W  / ' P  yj  r  J_L I

s = = ^ ~ y t t s tl , /.- -s- f  c /  wN-me T - y k r -  ; r'j ' /
Street A d d re ss— y v --  a . ,s

w.y --- A_______
A /d'P

_Phonc Number

_State . .n p  /Y! -Zip Code G ——S-.'-C-

VAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color X3 Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

V r.o discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprennccs.- 
rummiticc. If more than one, list all.

3 “ Pa ”. —-ttnulds K or th  American, m e . , ----------------------------------- -------------------- ----------------------------------
N-rr.e— .----------------------------------

Sircvt A d d ress.

Cty.

Loaoyno P la n t

M o b i l e -State- Alabama -Zip Code.

ANO .other parties if any).

iiase you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Y e s ^   ̂ N o C

yowf charge is against a company or a union, how many emp.oyees or members?- .Number Do not know H

Tro rrosl recent date on which u~.»s discrimination took place. Month— ° ut\o— —— ... L/ay_ Yn.if 10*37

£*;,.jin what unfair thing was aone to you:

r----A  A^nirnmn-i f- p re v io u s  ex-tariim ae  tsr- p n p io r i t y  a ro . p f r e c  and v r i —.9u rs a ? e r :  
< - ^ s » i i  n1* nrm-.'-itlr..- i f  in n  Me- r a  asa lacifliiSu -.----------------- ------— ---------------------------------------

:-0-ro Or.-.olo;,-n~e.-. denied the op-w-ranly to narticipato in tho Apprentice Training .Pro-rer;

■* ?1 'r .r  Pne.f T i t i ns a re  so^ ;ru:;atod b y -r&£sL^-

----------------------------------------------------------------- —--------

--- ----------------------------------------- —----

. v«%cur 0̂  aiiirm that l have read the above charge and that, 
~ . ( 1 */LUL / / S!  /  "? /- )

is true to the oest of my knowledge, information and belief.
, /?.<» S  A  A  _________ ________________________—------------------

, y  , u . '  y r y <
vSitffi your name)

196J2-----------
t  n  f ; t  t *  H  ' i , / . U ) T r v4 f r i e d G , ------------

i.S.irTU'» . J $  V tjiile) * ‘

i c ..C - : tor you iu get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will no,? w- 
’ syrn sworn to.

• U.L 60«C«NM(HT raiNTlM OfflCi : »••• • — **»•*•*

£/Fi'6  |f ' ,fV7



o -^  n O' 4~ Li -i
li you have a complaint, fill in tl>.s torm ami .• .*•!i it to the Equal 
.mployment Opportunity Commission's Regional Oftice in your area 
is soon as possible. It must Ik* mailed within 00 days alter the dis- 
nminatory act took place. (See addresses on hack page)

(PLEASE PRINT OK TYPE)

■ 1 o  ■— ~~~'j r ri -\ ~ ^  \ ins^orMiviiiX. -v »,_J<\
This form is to he used only to file a charge of discrimination Ou 
on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

M °  *7 / s?
Case File No. 6  ~~ / X  7 ____

1 Your Name r / c  (?/\ 1 /-/ / /  K  [■ . A 1  (£  / C A  7 A  / ./

Street Address__/  /  —  U ‘ g  / / f  / S ~ r f ~ .
> ■ -/ mf-

C w ^ m C L h  ) 7 k  4  {<£> '  • '  State A / A _______________ Zip Code

2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color XU Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

3 Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices.-, 
committee. If more than one, list all. - - 
M.imii C o u rto u ld s  S o r t h  A m e ric a n , I n c . ,

Lom.oyr.o P la n t
Street Address
r iiy  !.!o b ile  Alabama _______________ Zip Code
AND (other parties it any).

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

> If your charge is against a company or a union, how many eivpiayees o., m em b ers  r

» The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month Ju ne n.-w 1 Year 1367
....... ...........................................................................................——----- —————-----:---------------------------------- -.'i--- - - .  rti -  -r - — ---- — --------------------------------

' Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

without previous exparier.ce or seniority nro hired and trni;
led yg;ro Qn.ployaaa.___________________________

n e •-'—'O'-

2. So^ro employees nre denied tha opportunity to participate in tho Apprentice Training Programs

-3- .Plant facilities nre sogre; pud by rc

I swear or affirm that I have read the aoove chargmjnd that it is true to thfyoe-.ot my knowledge, inti 
D ate  Q j - U u  /  £> .  /6 (sO  '

(7 //V"C O  njrTlcl

information and belief.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this._ _____ Z i
___!j ilI U z H. -LuCten

-day of— -$p.Z-fL/<.C---------------- ------------------------ 1 9 6 Jy L
7m » $__£.£AA.bA-LLlf.J.£f (9

8 ( (THile) V

it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will he.p you 
et the form sworn to.

• U.L «0V(I«MII|T MIMTIH4 0»flCC I • —

11J



!' V” J h"V1' <’ compi.nm. till in this form anil v.ui n to the Equal This form is to lie ~ed only to file .1 charge of discrimination
.mplovnvm OptMvien.tv vomnnssiotVs Regional Office in your area on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.
,v '-v n  ■ ' v "  >f ‘iM't t’e mailed within ')() days alter the dis- ,
:rim.;\::.’. v Jet too*, place. tSee addresses on hack page) / \ j O

Case File No 7 -  << -  < ? y T
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) ~—

, V V /-V A / l Your iN.imc ̂ >' '\ r- / £ £ £  H  J-a /f/
Street Acidress /'X O £#/ 7 So // 7 ST
ritv M  0 /, / Z- ^ ----- State______f) £'___________ 7iD Code 3 0 / 7

2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color E Religious Creed □ National Origin □ Sex □

J Who discriminated against you! Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices.- 
-- committee. If more than one, list all.
Name_________ Courtnulds Xorth Ar.erican, Inc.. _____________________
Street Address_____
City__________ Mobile

Letnoyno Plant
<tt.ua Alabama

AND (other parties if any).
-Zip Code-

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

If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?- . Number Do not know ~

The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month June -i-»ay_ Year 1557
Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

. 1. ViT.ltn rt-pl nynnn ’■■rith-.tr acavl.pus experience or seniority are hired and >s
--- instead' ar promoting gunllfinn oaploynns._____________________ ___________________

2. negro employees ere denied the opportunity to participato in the Apprentice Training pro-re.-.s .

Z. Pitir.t fucl'iities are sorrs;°tiui by '•non.

I swear Oi-aftirm that I have read the above charge and that it, is true to tne best of my 
Date C I s t L U -* -  / J "  /<ytz/ knowledge, information and belief.

V
Subscribed and sworn to before me this.

ii.u  J p  ■ _z iSi^n your name)

-day of— 'fdj-.L-.i'L-A.______ ____________ ____________________j on n
--- • _ 'S. __4sitirs’U>.<.».,\L n  O  >.

y , iTific) ' ft <)

t IS difficult for you to gel a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help VO- :
the form sworn to.



you hove a cpmpl.jint. :'i!l in litis form and to ihe Equal
lipioymeitt Opportunity Commission's Regional .  .i'tce in your area 
. soon as possible. it must In- mailed within ‘JO days alter the dis- 
iminatory act toois place. (See addresses on hack pane)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

jŝ A iiVi.i \.A i ./iNl
This torm is to he 1 j only to file a charge of discriminate,i 
on RACE, COLOR, kclIOION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case Eile No. M t h  7-t- ?><?

Your Name .. /  ^ P*"
Street Address 2̂ cs  -■/. .1  SJ

City ---- ---------------------- -------------State . Pin Code £  riT / V
\
j WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)

Race or Color XD Religious Creed □  National Origin □ Sex □

Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices- 
: committee. Il more than one. list all.

Name_______________ Co o rtnu lds TCorth Am erican, I n c . . ______________________  .  .

Street Address. 
City___________

Letnoyne P la n t

Mobile ___State Alabama
ANO (other parties if any).

Zip Code_

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

I* * your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?.. .Number Do no! know ~

The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month June .Day___ 1_ . Year 153 7

Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

_u.hi.t a enr.p l nvftnn v r itn p u t  previous exnarler.e .n  or s o n io r l c y  o -o h i r e d  w i )  trn innrf » s n u m S c  
in s te a d  o f  p r w n t j t i -  n r - ' i W B - ; ._________________________________

? .  "ogro eniployeos nre denied the oppo rtunity to  p a r t ic ip a t e  in  tho A p p rentice  T ra in in g  ?.-o-.-=-z ,

3- Plant SaailiiLi r .e .j? too  oy r a c e .

I swear ̂ affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information'and belief 
D a t e ----- L £ J i?  \ ^  _______________________  ~/  /  £ " - ' \  l S'Kn  y o u r  n a m e )

...* ------------ ' /_L__djy of___ ____________ __________ 1% ySubscribed /»nd sworn to before me this. S L :

iI i M  jjii '

is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name ano mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help you 
the form sworn to.

* M.t. COVCUNMIMT faiMTlMO Office : IM« I-1U-II1

i .



■ it you have a complains, -fill in fi*:is torm ana iail it to (he Equal 
employment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your area 
as soon as possible. It must be mailed within *)0 days alter the dis­
criminatory act took place. (See addresses on back page)

This torm is to Ik - used only to tile a charge of discrimination r,.;
on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

A/O
Case File No. 7 W  -*?. ?o

(PLEASE PRIM  OR TYPE)

1 V/,.,. Mime / }  [  • ■ V a ‘ / /  L  &  — rr A> Phone Numhor_  ̂ ' 7 C/L i Z ‘

■ /!)/} i / \  1 A -  _____________
r ity f l y l #  b ,  /  -'■ > S t a t e  /c r y  y ,  z' 7ip C o d e  ""S' h  Ll> /  73

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color X j Religious Creed □  National Origin □ Sex □

3  Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices." 
committee. If more than one, list all. - ■Njmc_________ Conrtaulds Korth American, Inc.,__________________________________________ ;_____

Loraoyr.o Plant
Street Address------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -----
C ity__________________ l io b ile _____________________________________ state Alabama_______________________________ Zip Code________________________
AND (other parties if any)

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

5 If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members? Number Do not know

3

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you: *

1 . ".’h i t s  nmnlnyfinrt -without p rev io us exp erien ce  or s e n io r i t y  aro h ire d  snd t ra in e d  p.s o perators
in s te a d  nf nror\otiT£ q u a lif ie d  Ner-ro Qrr.ployQQS»

2 . Negro employees are der.iec the opporxunixy to  p a rx ic ip a to  in the A p p rentice  T ra in in g  .Program;

a , P la n t f a c i l i t i e s  are segregated  by r o e s .________________________________

I swearnr affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is trjje to the best of my knowledge1, .mormation and belief.D a t e  Q k r W z J  /  . r  / f i h  _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subscribed and sworn to before rru^this_
..U ) d  ? 'ri - iJ.

_day of.
iSignydiu r  n a m e )

I (T.llt)
.V rd

196_7-
i ’ t

I: it is difficult tor you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help yc.
get the form sworn to.



Th:- gain is to he cd only to file <t charge or discrimination t#». 
on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION. SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

■: you have .1 complaint, till m this form ,inn nl it to the fciu.il 
mployment Opportunity Commission's Rettton.il Office in your area 
s soon .is possible. It must be mailed within bO days alter the dis- 
nminatory act took place. (See addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
Case File No. ~ ' 7 '  o T ’j J

Street ^  T ' r e  .0/ A  / y - ______ _________________________________________________________________________________________
Citv ‘ / Q --/f AQ- d __________________________________ State , 4 1  / A?_________  _

2 WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one) 1 -
Race or Color X] Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex G

3 Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address oi tne employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices!-, 
committee. It more than one. list all.
Name_________________ C o n rtn u ld s  N o rth  A m e ric a n , I n c . , ________________________________________________________________________ __________ ^

Loraoyno P la n t
Street Adrlress________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ _____________
C ity___________________M o b ile_____________________________________ State Alabama_____________________________ I z . p  Code___________________________
AND (other parties it anyl------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ̂ Have you filed this charge witn a state or local government agency? Yes □  N o X J
> If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?. .Number Do not know

> The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month uuno .D ay____L_ ■ Year 19G7

' Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

■ 1. y.’hita enployoe.:; vrithout previous experience or seniority aro hired and trained e.s opsrstnfs 
instead of promoting euglifind ffez x

2. Kegro employees ere denied the opportunity to participate in tho Apprentice Training .Programs

■3- Plant facilities are segregated by race.

•  t l . » .  i O V l «  MM ( N T  r i l M T i a a  O f f l C *  1 I N I  •

it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help you
et the form sworn to.



—\ • *- --  ---\ • '--) | A \O /  i y— O i  u> i O  O  A

!: you have,.» v om;>l.»i;i;. in tins te»rm am .;! it to the Equal This torm is to 1; 
t.mployment ( opportunity Commission's Regional Ottice in your area on RACE, COLOR, 
as soon as possible. It must be mailed within ‘)0 days alter the dis­
criminatory act took place. (See addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

O N
ed only to file a < harge of disc rimmation h.i 

RELIGION, SCX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No. / / ^  ' C  ~  9  S  T -

1 v„ .„  v  L j  / ■ ) < " / >‘J  r / / > P r / 2  e1_____________________ ___________________ Phono Number *7c '
J 3 , "X. .?  J~ )e 1-1 l - l _______ A i / r  ■______________________________ ____________________________________________________

r .„ .  r  s.,m  y O  _________________

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION flECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color X] Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

3  Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprendcesr 
commitlee. If more than one. list all.Njmc________ Cou.-tnulda T'orth American, Inc.,__________________ i__________________________ ___

Lonoyr.o P la n t
Street Address_______________ __________—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C ity__________________ “ o'oilo_____________________________________State_______A la ? g53____________________________ z_Zip Code___________________________
AND (other parties if any) ----------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------.------

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

5 If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members? Number Do not know

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you: »

1. T.'hStn nnil.wnas v/ithout orevious experience or seniority are h!red and trained as operators

2 .  TTogro etr.oloyaos are denied the opportunity to participate in •che Apprentice Training .Program

fncilities aro so-rented by roce

S  l swear affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the oest of my knowledge, information and belief.
Date SL/, / / O  O '

~ / r ^ L
,— s lSign,yOur“njmc)

i '1
1  i t ,  0 ft , C / ' Ct  / . * . 0

(Name) [1 IJ tr.ik-(

l: it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help >Cv
get the form sworn to.

•  M*. AOVCINNCNT M1HTIMC Of f l Cl  i !»••



v—'  • . 1“  . d  V_> > l J  • C— * O  \  v i , \ i

.i: you v u e a ’somVjiamt. fill in this form .in \m it to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission's Region... Oitice in your area 
as soon as possible. It must be mailed within •)() days after the dis­
criminatory act took place. iSee addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

This form is to b 
on RACE, COLOR.

ed only to file a charge of discrirran;. on 
KELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORlGlN.

Case File Nn. A j.D i A- A .-

1 Vn„f Name ht''/SCo-7 7 / l 'f  -_______A ' / ^ .•>' ^  _  /  /  ~ w  r — v-— — r  ̂
Street Address-------- -'*1 r?  v/—̂  ,, -_______________________________________ , ____________________________
City ^  S.ale - ---------------£_tp v-uu*--̂ 7—p—:—7— -7---------

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one) 
Race or Color 12 Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

3  Who discriminated against you' Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices' 
committee. If more than one, list all.
Name._________________ C o tir tn u ld s  K o r th  A - e r lc a n ,  I n c . . ________________________________— ____________________________________________________

Larnoyr.o P la n t  
Street Address_____________________________
City M o b ile State Alabama _____________ .-..2ip Code
AND (other parties if any)

+ Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes 3  No XU

5 If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members'. .Number Do not know

3 The most recent date on which this discrimination took piace: Mnnth June .D ay____! _ Year IS O 7

X Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

1. Tfhlta .anployaaa.yrith.-.ut: previous experience or seniority aro hired m d  trained as 
___instne.h af promotirtg m in i 1 flap Xejra oraployonr. ■__________________________ ________________

2 .  X e g ro  em p loyees nre d e n ie d  the  o p p o rtu n ity  t o  p a r t i c ip a t o  in  tho A p o re r .t ic a  T r a in in g  ? r o r r ? .- si i----------------^—  ----

?■- P la n t  f a c i l i t i es a re  se .^ rsg ato a  by ra c e

* I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge apd that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 
Date. S<=T/.r/,r.z / /  / s ', y 'z y

^ ‘/ s'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this___________ d_ C_______

U  ) . f S j \ , ( .  - ( L L L \  r c ~ :
_day of_

k=y>-4Si(ifl.y<
. c y i ' - t c  ---- ---------------------- 1%_£L

• it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help yc 
et the form sworn to.

•  w *  40VCHNMINT raiNTiao o rn c t . i - i u - i u

76
s*



L/i E E  O rrz *->;o*-V i W  V—' A r vM
you have J’ complaint, liii'm tni*» b'-'n and .1 it to the Equal 

nployment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your area 
. soon as possible. It must be mailed within ‘)0 days alter the dis- 
iminatory act took place. (See addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

This form is to be -d only to tile a charge 01 discrimination n.>
on  RACE. COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No. Ho. 7 h  -

Your N.mw / V c O S  <? t h ( c t,A ~ -k r________ _ ____________________________________________________I’honc Number.
Street Address 0 -1/  C- ‘-f_______ p t  lH .d — T~~r~ Ct----- S r  —  —......
City_________ ~ 7y ) n L  (  o __________________________________Strap /  .Q  ,________________________________ Zip Code_______

I WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color X] Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprenticesr. 
committee. If more than one, list all.Njmc._________ Conrtnulds Korth American. Inc.,__________________ I_____________________________

Lomoyno Plant
Street Address-------------------- ------------ ------ — ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
C ity__________ Mobile
AND (other parties it any) —

cldte___ Alabama _IZip Code.

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

If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?.

• The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month— June---------------- Day-----L

1 Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

1 . nmpi n.man vrithout. previous experience or seniority aro hired
instead of promoting Qualified Negro employee a..------------------

2 . Negro employees are denied the opportunity to participate in tho Ap

7 Plant facilities are segregated by race

Number Do not know

Yp.tr 196"

and t r a in e d  as o p e ra to rs

nrantice Training Programs

I I swear. 
Date.

roar.affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best-of my knowledge, infomiation ancTbelief.
C:v / / / ,r V,.i / ( ? / , ?  ______________ rf? 0-Cf~
/  1 “  r" •  .V  __  i S In  vnur m m ,  .77

SubscVloecj ai\d sworn to before me this—
___X j j u u m l

*>E>
(Sign your name)

___ ___________day nf 196.pL

(Name)

L?tr<LK{b (J
\ v iTfio (j r

• II.S. wOvcanaCNT raiaTiac Office : if«a •—UJ-»U

f it is difficult for you to gel a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help yo_
;et the form sworn to.

77
0 kSO-



C .  , / J G E  C F  D I S C R i M i i  . A  O M
<il you haw'd compijinl, till in tli.> .urm ,ind ..hi il to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your area 
as soon as possible. It must be mailed within ')() days alter the dis­
criminatory act took plate, iStv addresses on back page)

iPLEASE PRINT OK TYPE)

This form is to In . >sed only to hie .1 charge of discrimination n.
on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION. SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No. / V '^  "  7 "  ~~

■J Your ■» ^  *> _ -----
Street .....  7  ~ J 7 C  ________________________
rtiy  / t f i  'J ' - /  / j - f  State / ,* £ 7 ip Code ^  ^  S  7

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color Zj  Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex Q

3  Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices- 
committee. If more than one, list all. - .
N jm c_________________C o u r tn u ld s  N o rth  A m e ric a n , I n c . , ____________________________________________________________________________

Street Address. 
C ity____________

Loraoyno P la n t

" o b i lo -State. Alabama -Zip Code-
AND (other parties if any).

A Have you fill'd this charge with a stale or local government agency? Yes □  No

5

6

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you: *

i 1 .  V/hitn nmnlmmett w ith o u t  p re v io u s  e x p e r ie n c e  o r  s e n i o r i t y  a re h ir e d  and t r a in e d  as o p e ra to rs
i in s t e a d  o f  p rom oting m i a l i f i e d  N egro e m p lo y e e s .i

2 . N egro em ployees a re  d e n ie d  th e  o p p o rtu n ity  t o  p a r t i c i p a t e  in the  A n p re n t ic o  T r a in in g  Program -

X . P la n t  f a c i l i t i e s  a re  se g re g a te d  bv r a c e .

B  1 swear ■ 
Date__

^affirm that 1 have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information «)nd belief.
> r̂ {  f  t / / / £  / &  o  ?  ><X

. 0  Subsent
_ i i

/  '  '  ’ /  iSignyour name) S~~T

h l l u .  y . H l U A ' C Q  __ '
(Name) jr  x I  , v C  J \~i t

; I: it is dinicult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will heip yo. 
get the form ssvorn to.

• M l 60V(IMM(NT MINTIM6 OffiC* : lilt • — liMII



Ci . r -  O ”  * S  G 4 lV »  i i\ , >N
I: you h.m* n complaint, til; in tins and .i it to the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission's Regional Office in your area 
as soon as possible. It must ho mailed within *)0 days alter the dis­
criminatory «ict took place. (See addresses on hack pane)

This torm is to he rd only to file .1 charge of disc rimination ,
on RACE. COLOR. RELIGION. SEX. or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
Case File No. / V ^  ~ ^

A ,1 Your N , ™  _ ! % # ? .  _____ _______________________________

j City _____ U j C ^ U ___________________ Si.il,. C iJ - C -

_Phone Number:

-Zip Code-

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color ZU Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex u

3  Who discriminaled againsl you? Give the name and address of the employer, iahor organization, employment agency and/or apprenticesr 
committee. It more than one. list all.
Name_________________Co-.irtnulds Korth American. Inc., ______________ ___________ •______________
Street Address. 
City-------------

Lomoyno Plant
Mobile -State- Alabama

AND (other parties it any).
-Zip Code-

+ Have you filed this charge with a stale or local government agency? Yes □  NoXH

5 It your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?- . Number Do not know

3 The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Mnnth Juneid =gggfca -Day____1_ Year 1567

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

1._Yfhita. amployeas without previous experience or seniority are hired and trained as np.-.Sr. 
 instead of promoting qualified Ferro employee.; ._________ ________________________________

2. Fap;ro employees are denied the opportunity to parricipato in tha Apprentice Training .Programs

.3. Plant facilities are segregated by race

1 I swear orvaffirm that I have read the above charge and dipt it is true tq.the best of my knowledge, information and belief, 
j  Date / / ?  / 7

Subscribed.«ind sworn to before mo this_
:! - i - i  U  j a > ■;

__Oy 7 /
(Sign your name)

day of— _______________________________ion J
c ’  ̂( i/’!’* / XffVj't is,
! I| (Till/) i>

t it is ditficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will he lpyc.
;et me form sworn to. <

• 14.1 COYlixuCur PliHTina OfflCI : ■ ***

79
9o«s



V-/ t r  O  i L.  ̂i « i V» * ?\ i /~\ . «\.
i; you have* a Vomp’iaint, lijl in this form an âii it to the Ecjual This form is to . serf only to file a c harge of discrimination i>,.

Employment Opportunity Commission's Regionj. Office in your area on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORiGIN.
3s soon as possible. It must bo mailed within ‘JO days alter the dis­
criminatory act took place. (See addresses on back page) M .

Case File No. //< ? / -  6 - <?2 7
(PLEASE PRINT OK TYPE)

* Vnur N.imp
Street AddressrZ £ £ M — A &  e r , S f *  e**
Citv /£/0 & / / < 2 -

-

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color 23 Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

3  Who discriminated o^oinst you? C ivc the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices- 
committee. If more than one, list all.
Name_________ Courtnulds North Air.arican, Inc.,________________________________

Letnoyna Plant
Street Address_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City___________________■'°b T la ______________________________________ State______ ________________________________________^_Zip Code___________________________
AND (other parties if any)___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________

4 Have you tiled this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes □  NoX3

d If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?________________________________ Number Do not know

3 The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month June________________ Day 1__________________Year 1S57

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

j 1. Tnltn employsan ’without orovjous axoarier.ca or seniority ara hired and trained as operator;
instead of promoting Qualified T’ejro aaployaaa.___________________________________________

j ______________________________________________________________________________________
2. Kogro axployaas are janiec the opportunity to participato in tho Apprentice Training .pro~rgr.

Plant facilities are so-negated by race

3 I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to tfie-be>i of my kkcovAdoge, information and belief.
Q////; / f  './C6 7  ///vf'//.'. , _________;___________

/''“"N (Si»;n yoof namol

/ y  7 7 _____________ day of____  y '- H .te-C . . . .  ,_______________________196.
_______________________  (/sL(.m A p. $ fyd .1,-

j  y  V - J mo j i j

Date-

Subs and sworn to befon 
M r

•  U *. 60VCMN M(NT MIMTIM OFFICt I ! (• «  • — 1(1*111

If it is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will he!p>c.
jet the form sworn to.

8 0



i.i you Jiavo a complaint*, tiil m this form and^ ail it to the Ecjual 
fmpioyi.vntf)pportunity Commission's Region )ilice in your area 
as soon as possible. It must be mailed within bo days alter the dis­
criminatory act took place, (bee addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

This lorm is lo be used only to tile* a c harge c;f' disc romnatior r
on RACE, COLOI -LIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL OKJCi.*.

Case File No. /y/3-

1 Yr.;.f Nam.-- {//'/ C- LcJ_t- C / /  L'  ̂j !//? //
Street Address ^  5  P  / {  P

' n 'n a  T a / J  j
Street Address ^  J^ _jk_JrZ____ £

City / ? _ £ / ? / /  r / -State-

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION RECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
R.ice or Color Xj  Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

-Phone Number;

-Zip Code-

3  Who discriminated against you? Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices- 
committee. If more Ilian one, list all.
Name_________________ C o u r ta u ld s  N o rth  A m e rica n , I n c , , _________________________________________________________________ • __________

Street Address. 
C ity------------

Letnoyr.o Plant
Mobile -State- Alabama -Zip Code-

AND (other parties if any).

4  Have you filed this charge with a state or local government agency? Yes □  NoXH

5 If your charge is against a company or a union, now many employees or members?..
6 The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month June

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you: •

1- Tfhitn employee:: without previous experience or seniority ere hired and trained as operetnrr
instead of promoting oualified Ne,jro employees.

1 2 . Xogro employees ere denied the opportunity to participaro in the Apprentice Training .Progrsr.:
s'*

3. Plant facilities are sozreiptec by race.
i /
!j •

i

3 1 swear oc-affirm that 1 have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Date /  6  / O -

/  ‘Sinn your name)
Subwrnbed and sworn to before me tnis_________ r &  ______________ dav of "  i. _ 1 %  7
_ / i L J f > r . ~ \ - i t * / / . / ( y t K  ; ,i iNjnH'l ( itVcT r

i f ‘t is difficult for you to get a Notary Pur.lic to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help >c. 
get the form sworn to.

•  W .l. 60VMNHCMT PtlNTIMS OfflCC ; H I M - I U - 1 K

I

81



you have a •cofnplaiht, till in (his form anti n it to the Equal 
pioymcnt Opportunity Commission s Regional c .u ce  in your area 
soon as possible. It must be mailed within *)() days alter the dis- 
runatory act took place. (See addresses on back page)

(PLEASE PRINT OP TYPE)

This torm is to be • only to tile a charge of discrimination bav
on KACE, COLOR. Kc l ICION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No.

Your N jm c ' ' < .* w
S’.rce! Address ~ —
i rUyV-Yi. /c /' - v d

. ... .
Src>,

.Phone Number

sr/yi- _St jto_ _Zip Code.

WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
Race or Color 2D Religious Creed □  National Origin □ Sex □

Who discriminated against you? C ivc the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprenticesni 
committee. If more than one, list all.Namc_________ Courtnulds North American, Ir.c.,___________________ — __________________________

Lomoyno Plant
Street Address______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City___________________?'o b iIa ______________________________________State______ Alabarsa_______________________________ Zip Code____________________________
ANO (other parties if any)______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ _______________

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

If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?- .Number Do not know

The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Mnnth June
°-r±4— .D ay____L_ Year 1957

Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

1- TThita Qir.nloyons v/jthout previous axperier.ee or seniority are hired and trgir.gd as operators
r , r - l  -

2. Negro eraployeos nre denied the opportunity to participato in tho Apprentice Training .Programs .

_21 facilities nra segregated by roco.

I sweater affirm that I have rqad the above charge and that-iriirmje to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 
-1 r n .e >).<■ /// ,S  / / S  / C ,  /  7  _________________ ‘ ______________

7  7 ^ v '  '  / —  ,c ________________

c r y / ^/C?
* —*\ (Sign your njmc)

U U 7 ja 7  M j J J h t A ^  ...,
(Name)* —— ------------------------ / / It

t is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help you: 
the form sworn to.

*  u .v  • o v m n n im t  M in im a  o rn c x  i ••••  • —m - » u

82



O  - _ C.~ D 13C.-vitVi!;\I,\ ! O j\!
(It you have .1 con:,)lainl,- nil in this lorm ar. -mail it to the Equal i mb torm is to ...- used only tc; tile* a charge of discrimination

J Employment Opportunity Commission's KcKton.il Office in your area on RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.
' j as soon as possiijlc. II must lie mailed within *)() days after the dis-

enminatory act took place. (See addresses on back paj;e) 

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
Case File Nn N O  -  7' 6 - ' y . f ?

1 Your Name — . i / A  /% s- r  a' A  £! r/________
Street Address / 1 / 7z A /• V/O_____
City M t r. ll ! ) C> <ti.wi. A L?l { r > A1 ^ .. Zip Cnrie S  d- /,■ / '7

2  WAS THE DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one) 
Race or Color IO Religious Creed □ National Origin □  Sex □

3  Who discriminated attains! you? Give the name and address 01 the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentice 
committee. If more than one. list all.
Name_________________ C o -a rtn u ld s  N o rth  A m e ric a n , I n c . , __________________________________________________________________

Larr.oyno Plant
Street Address_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ___________________
C ity------------------- M o b ile-------------------------------------- State Alabama__________________________________£ip Code__________________
AND (other parties if any)____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

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

5  If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or members?_______________________________ Number Do not know

6  The most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Mnmh June_________________Day 1__________________Year 19G7
..- " " ,,

7  Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

■le a—flisaiayaas vrithput previous experience or seniority arc hired and traced as r-i»rstnr< 
---instead or pror-otizî  cnnlified employee.-.._______________________ ~~ ________

2 . Xofrro e -p lo y o e s  a re  d e n ie d  th e  o p p o rtu n ity  t o  p a r t i c i p a t e  in  tho A p p re n t ic e  T r a i r . in r  P ro '-ra-  ■ _ “----------- :--------------------  ■ " -y— —1

3 .  p la n t  f a c i l i t i e s  a r e  s a g ro ip ta r f  by rnr.a

i

8  I swear or. affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief
D a t e ^ l 4 ^ _ / ^  7  /-V--. ________
Subscribed «iQ<i sworn to before me tiiter .̂ /̂ ~ 

(Name) J-

-day of-

IS i k h  y o u r
- p i

I ‘>6 J7_/ r ' •GiGC—

if d is difficult for you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help s „ 
j gel the form sworn to.
4 * v •  11.1. •OVUNNfNT M lH T IM  O fflC l •  —l U - l l i a

83



=z c f  d i s c r :.v .:im>2 -o n
you have a complain!. It II in this lorm and mad it lo the Equal

iploymenl Opportunity Commission's Regional Omcc in your area 
soon as possible. It must tie mailed within ')() days alter the dis- 
minatory act look place. (See addresses on hack page)

(PLEASE PKINT OK TYPE)

This form is to he used only to tile a charge of discrimination ha 
on RACE. COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, or NATIONAL ORIGIN.

Case File No. ~ L---- ‘7 '^ ° —

I
r? /Vg iZ.Your Name ■■ ̂ £  /■' F  £  -j Street Address U  U f -  ^

| C ity- ------

_Phone Number.

_State_ >2 i f l b / I M f i . _Zip Code-

I WAS t h e  DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF: (Please check one)
R a c e  or Color X3 Religious Creed □  National Origin □  Sex □

Whp discriminated against you! Give the name and address of the employer, labor organization, employment agency and/or apprentices:
' committee. If mom , ^  ont l , t a . lKn^ h ^  ____________ __________________________ ____________________________________
Name---------- -------------- -
Street Address. 
City ------------

Lemoyr.e Plant
Mobile -State______ Alaba-£f- _Zip Code-

AND (other parties if any).

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

5 If your charge is against a company or a union, how many employees or membersf-

5 Tne most recent date on which this discrimination took place: Month— _Day-

7 Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

.Number Do not know

Year 19S7

1 . TThitfl firnpl oynns '.•>a.thc,ut _T>rnviô s eKpb,r.igilS3—2* s0n" 
la s H s r l  Of* p rom pt:-:- > i~ r o  oiaplbima3-

i o r i t v  e r o  h i r e d  nr.d t r v . r . e d  a? d ? ° r " - t p r s _.

>. NaEro employees ere denied the opportunity to participate in tho Apprentice Treinin^.Pr ^

7 P I  nut  f  e c i l i

8  I sweag^r affirm that I
Datei-?^/^ J2-

t I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
,, /s j/-> S fr-f ----- -----:------------- -\s»\\yrJ, » i i, ■ - • y----  ”7 7 V* (Sign your njme)

* 4 / 7 ? f t  T™. d"  01

If it IS difficult tor you to get a Notary Public to sign this, sign your own name
get the form sworn to.

and mail to the Regional Office. The Commission will help sc

• l|. t 60V(*MMCHT mwiih ornct: tt»« • — *u-»

< ? S c L
84



'Tbr^. " —  U/ Xu, I J. j
[Letterhead, of]

<f *- /'°/r/

CO NCILIATION
AGREEMENT

BIRMINGHAM AREA OFFICE 
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

2121 8th Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Case No. 31 68-10-139 2 thru 1 5 I4 2

In tne Matter of the Conciliation Between
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and
Alphonse Creagh 
Herman Blackmon 
Earl Lee Eaton 
Freddie Eaton'
Warren Eaton ,
William Goodwin 
Lawson Harvey 
Lamar Hill 
Roosevelt Hurd 
Leroy Sims 
Leo Sprivey, Jr.
Willie Stallworth 
Russel Warmack 
Levon Thornton 
Joe Lee Turner 

Complainants
and

Courtauids North America, Inc., LeMoyne Plant 
Mobile, Alabama
and

Local i f  V i 6 5 ,  -Textile Workers Union of America 
Satsuma, Alabama

Respondent(s)

Charges having been filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 by the Charging Parties, the Commission having 
found reasonable cause to Relieve the charges to be true and 
the matter having been conciliated, the parties hereby agree

■ f •

1/ &  <!

85



to and do settle the above natter on the terns set forth 
below:

1. Respondents agree that the Connisslon, on request
of any Charging Party, or on its own notion, nay review 

conplianee with this Agreenent. As a part of such review, 

the Connisslon nay require written reports concerning con- 
pliance; nay inspect the prenises; exanine witnesses, and 
exanlne and copy docunents.

2. It is understood that this Agreenent does not constitute 
an adnlsslon by any Respondent of any violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. The Charging Parties hereby agree and covenant n6t to
sue any Respondent with respect to any natters which

were or night have been alleged as charges filed with the 
«

Connisslon, subject to perfornance by the Respondents of the 
pronj.ses contained herein. Tne Connisslon shall deternine 
whether the Respondents have conpliea with the 'terns of 
this Agreenent.

4. Respondent corporation agrees that no enployee, shall be 
denied *ne use of any— facility on the orenises on account

of race, color, religion, or national origin; that^there 
shall be no discrinination against any enployee on said ground

86



3

with respect to the use of facilities; and that the notice 

required to be posted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 will be posted.

5. Respondents agree that there shall be no discrimination 

or retaliation of any kind against any person because 

of the Civil Rights Act of 19t4; or because of the filing 

of a charge; giving of testimony or assistance; or parti- 

cipation_in any manner, in any investigation, proceeding, 

or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964.

6.. Respondent labor organization agrees that it will not 

cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate 
against any individual on the 'basis of race, color, religion, 

sex, or national origin; and t.bat in the negotiation and 

administration of collective ^bargaining agreements, it will

87



whomfairly represent all employees for whom it is the bargaining 
agent without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin of said employees in accordance with Title 
Vui of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

i

— Respondent labor organization agrees that all pro-

. visions of its present collective bargaining agreement 
and any future agreement to be entered into between the 
Respondents will be strictly enforced where the provisions 
of the collective bargaining agreement affect Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and further, that all griev­
ances based on alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil 
•Rights Act of 1964 will he fully and vigorously processed.

... Respondent labor organization agrees that it will 
not exclude or expel from membership, or otherwise 

_ dlscri‘“.lnate against any individual'because of his race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin; or limit, segre­
gate or classify-its membership, or classify or fail or 
refuse to refer for employment any individual in any way 

• wnich would deprive or tend to deprive him of employment 
opportunities or would limit such employment opportunities ' 
or otherwise adversely affect his. status as an employee or " 
as an applicant for employment because of such Individual's 
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

8 8



)

.es that it will" provide
equal opportunity in all areas of its employment prac­

tices, including but not necessarily limited to recruit­
ment, hiring, job assignments, Job classifications, training, 
filling of vacancies (permanent and temporary), promotions, 
demotions and any other terms and conditions of employment 
without regard to race, color, sex, religion or national 

origin.

10. Respondents agree to modify the present system of 
seniority for those Black emoloye.es who were hired 

originally as laborers or Janitors prior to October 21,
1 9 6 8, in connection with promotions, demotions, layoffs 
and recalls during the term of the existing collective 
bargaining agreement dated October 26, 1970, in the fol­

lowing respects:
(a) When such Black employees who v;ere hired

or advancement to the next higher Job in their 
section line of progression, plant seniority 
(length of service in the particular plant) 
shall be accented as the guiding principle. An 
employee awarded a higher Job on a permanent

originally in the laborer Janitor group, and are 
now in another section compete with other 
employees in respect of layoff, recall, demotion

8 9





classification in resoect of layoff or recall, 
plans seniority (length of service in the par­
ticular plant) shall be accepted as the guiding 
principle.

(d) Whenever a job vacancy occurs, other than a 
supervisory one, notice shall be posted in the 
particular Plant in accordance with existing 
posting procedures.

(e) Except as specifically set forth above,‘the 
existing provisions with respect to section and 
classification seniority shall continue in effect.

11. Respondent corporation agrees that all tests will be 
validated, and validation studies submitted to the 

Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Birmingham, 
Alabama, on completion. Tests will be administered without 
regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin 
of the applicant.

A. Retesting shall be allowed applicants whenever 
appropriate and applicants shall be advised of 
their opportunity to retake tests.

91



3. Respondent corporation, within the limits 
of its budget and personnel shall endeavor 
to cause the interviewing and testing of 
minority group applicants to be conducted 
by persons thoroughly conversant with equal 
employment opportunity policies.

12. All records made or kept pursuant to this Agree­
ment or in the regular course of business, shall 

be maintained by Respondent corporation for a minimum 
period of 1 year and made available for inspection, 
pursuant to Paragraph (1) of this Agreement.

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
LEMOYNE PLANT

By____________________________

Date ' Title

9 2
/ < ? 3



Date

Date

Date

J
Date

Date

Dace

Date

«
Date '

•
Date

Date

Date

.

Date

LOCAL ;/ 1465, TEXTILE WORKERS UNICT 
OF AMERICA
By • ____________________________

Alphonse Creagh, margins Party 

Herman Blackmon, Charging Party 

Lari Lee Eason, Charging Party ""— “ 

Freddie -aeon, Charging Party “

warren Eaton, Charging Farcy-------

Goodwin, Charging Party

Lawson Harvey, Charging Party------

Lamar Hill, Charging Farcy " '

Roosevelt Hurd, Charging Party 

'Leroy Sims, ChargingParty 

Leo Sprivey, Jr., Charging Party

— r

00





TENTATIVE ??.0?OSA ' y ?  LOCAL > 0. IL6 5 , ?EXTILr“%0RK'EE3 LTION OF 
AMERICA, 2tVI3tJl.A, L-TrE AATTZE 0? CASES NO.Bio -10-139E THROUO- 6168- 
10-1SbE ---------------

Charges having been filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1 9SL by the Charging Party(ies), the Commission having found reasonable 
cause to believe the charges to be true and the matter having been con­
ciliated, the parties hereby agree to and do settle the above matter in 
following extent and manner:

1, The Respondents agree that the Commission, on request of any 
Charging Party, or on its own motion, may review compliance with this 
Agreement, As a part of such review, the Commision may require written 
reports concerning compliance; may inspect the premises; examine wit­
nesses, and examine and copy documents,

2, It is understood that this Agreement does not constituie an ad­
mission by any Respondent of any violation of Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 19 6b.

3, The Charging Parties hereby agree and covenant—not—to—sue—any---
Respondent with respect to any matters which were or might have been 
alleged as charges filed with the Commission subject to performance by 
the Respondents of the promises and representations contained herein.
The Commission shall determine whether the Respondents have complied 
with the terms of this agreement.

b. All hiring, promotion practices, and other conditions of employ­
ment, shall be maintained and conducted in a manner which does not dis­
criminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin 
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19 6b.

5. The Respondents agree that there shall be no discrimination or 
retaliation of any kind against any person because of the Civil Rights 
Act of 19 6b; or because of the filing of a charge; giving of testimony 
or assistance; or participation in any manner in any investigation, pro­
ceeding, or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19 6b.

6 . The Respondents agree to report in writing to the Birmingham Area 
Office, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2121 Eight Avenue, 
North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, when they have completed the under­
takings outlined in the paragraphs of this Agreement. The reports will 
describe the manner in which the undertakings were carred out. These 
reports shall be submitted not later than ninety (9 0) days from the 
date of this Agreement.

7. Respondent labor organization agrees that it will not cause or 
attempt to cause ?n employer to discriminate against any individual on 
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; and that

•A-. / / / / £ / r  '/ f" 09



- 2 -■ % * f
.  i i V . y /
m  the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agree-, 
mentsi it will fairly represent all employees for whom it is the bar­
gaining agent without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin of said employees in accordance with Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.

8. The Respondent labor organization agrees that all provisions of 
its present collective bargaining agreement and any future agreement to 
be entered into between the Respondents will be strictly enforced where 

the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement affect Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964* and further, that ail grievances based 

on alleged violations of the contract, which would constitute alleged 
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be- fully 
and vigorously processed.

9. The Respondent labor organization agrees that it will not exclude 
or expel from membership, or otherwise discriminate against any individ­
ual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin* or 

limit, segregate or classify its membership, or classify or fail or re­
fuse to refer for employment any individual in any way which would de­
prive him of employment opportunity or would limit such employment 

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or 
as an applicant for employment because of such individual’s race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin.

10. Respondent Company and Respondent Union agree to replace the 
present seniority system, and to establish a seniority system as follows 1

A, With respect 0̂ promitions, demotions and upgrading, in the —  
event of a vacancy in either the Rayon Plant or Nylon Plant, the 
job will be posted for bids by employees in the appropriate plant, 

..iohin each Section, when a vacancy occurs in any job other than 
the entry job, the job will be awarded to the bidder with the 
greatest Section seniority, except that as to any Black employee
hired prior to the date of ____________ , who is bidding for the
job next above hls_jn the line of Progress-: on . his plant senior­
ity snail govern. Within each Section, when a vacancy occurs on 

sngry job ..n ohe Section, which shall hereafter-be a Section 
seniority job, the job will be awarded to the bidder with the

plant seniority. When a vacancy occurs in the apprent­
iceship program, the job will be awarded to the bidder with the



-  J -

greatcst company seniority, provided he meets the rcouirements 
provided for pursuant to Paragraphs 1 7 and 13 of this Agreement. 
The employee awarded the job will be given a reasonable trial 
period, not to exceed four weeks, to learn the new job. If he 
does not qualify, he may return to his previous job. Employees 
transferring under these procedures shall receive no diminution 
of pay for the job classes to which they transferred.
B. With respect to layoffs and recalls, within each Section, 
Section seniority shall govern, except that as to any Elack
employee hired prior to the date of ________________ who would
be laid off if if his Section seniority governed, his plant 
seniority shall, if sufficient, entitle him to hold the'entry 
job. Within.each craft, classification seniority shall govern 
as among journeymen except that as to any Black employee hired
prior to the date of ____________, plant seniority shall govern.
In a separate list, plant sen iority shall govern within each 
craft as among apprentices. Within each craft all apprentices 
shall be laid off before, and recalled after, all journeymen.
All apprentices completing their 3,000 hours apprenticeship
shall become journeymen, carrying their plant seniority..
C. Whenever_&jign-supervisory job vacancy occurs, in either the 
Eayon Plant or Kylon Plant, notice shall be posted and main­
tained on the bulletin boards of every Section in the approp­
riate plant lor a period of three working days; whenever a 
vacancy occurs in the apprenticeship program, notices shall be 
posted similarly, but in both plants; such notice shall include 
the job title, location, description of duties, assigned shifts, 
hours of work, and rates of pay. A copy of the notice shall 
immediately be furnished to the local union. All employees 
within the plant ( or plants as to apprenticeships) may bid 
within a 72-hour period by signing their names on the notice, 
and the job will be awarded in accordance with Paragraph A, above. 
In order to insure every employee an opportunity to be consid­
ered for any vacancy during any absence from work, he will be 
permitted to file with the Personnel Office a job and/or jobs 
request which will remain effective for a period of one year.
If he shall be absent at a time when he shall become eligible

i
Jr '



for 'such joc-j the jot will remain open intil his return. If he 
shall not then want the job, it will be posted in accordance 
with the above.

D. Respondent Company and Respondent Union agree to meet immed­
iately for the purpose of renegotiating the collective barg- 
aining agreeinen't to provido “the seniority arrangements set 

forth in this Agreement. Respondent Union agrees to report the 

results of these negotiations to the Commission within 5̂ days 

from the efiective date of this Agreement. Respondent Company 
and Respondent Union further agree that if they areunable to 

agree within ^5 days on contract language to implement the terms 
of this Agreement, the matter will immediately be referred to 
arbitration in the manner provided in the present contract,

1 1 , Respondents agree that the system of seniority set forth in
this Agreement shall be. placed into effect within --------days from
the effective date of this Agreement.

12, Respondents agree that all tests for hiring; or for entry 
— il0^s will be suspended until such tests have been validated 

and validation studies submitted to the Director, Equal Employm - 
ent Opportunity Commission, Birmingham, Alabama, on completion, 

further tests will be administered by Respondent Company, with the 

presence of a representative of Respondent Union, which shall be join­
tly liable with Respondent Company for the fairness of the testing 
program, without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national 
origin of the applicant, test results will be interpreted and usedin 
conformance with the instructions and guidelines issued by Equal S 
Employment Opportunity Commission.

a. Retesting shall be allowed applicants whenever appropriate
and applicants shall be advised of their opportunity to re­
take tests.

b. Respondent Company, within the limits of its budget and per­
sonnel, shall endeavor to cause the interviewing and testing 
of minority group applicants to be conducted by persons 
thoroughly conversant with »qual employment opportunity 
policies,

l u i



AL'3P0ndent3 ^V. oe that training opportunities and opportunities
 ̂ * vy t  r»  r  /  /

for advancement thrcfUgh training (formal and informal) shall bo review­
ed jointly by tne Company and the Union to assure a continued opportun­
ity for all employees: male, female, Black, V/hite and all others. The 
appropriate personnel charged with training and advancement opportun­
ities shall be fully apprised of this policy.

-5-

A, To implement the above, Respondent Company agrees to 
waive any test required for entry into Respondent"s 

apprenticeship program until such tests have been vali­
dated and validation studies submitted to the Director,
BiAG, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

B, Further, Respondent Company agrees to insure that Black 
employees are given equal opportunity for training and 
selection for vacant apprentice jobs and other jobs 
excluded from the plant bidding procedure.

1^. To effectuate the purpose and intent of Title VII of the 196^ 
Civrl Rights Act, the Respondents agree to report to the Commission 
within a period of 120 days from the effective date of this Agreement, 
all persons transferred, promoted, up-graded or placed into the Aopren- 
ticeship Program. This report shall contain the name, race, date of 
hire, rate of pay, and position. This report will be submitted to the 
Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Birmingham Area 
Office on or before the 120th day of the 120-day.reporting period.

I U 2
/ / 0 A '



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
1 SOU. DIST. ALA. 
siie ij IN CLERK'S CFFiCE

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL.
Plaintiffs,

VS CIVIL ACTION
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., ET AL., NO. 6648-71-T

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO 
DEFENDANT COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: Mr. Paul Brock
Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston 30th Floor
First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs request, pursuant to 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Defendant, 
Courtaulds North America, Inc. (the "Company") answer separately 
and fully in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days 
after service hereof, the following written interrogatories 
and identify, separately and in a manner for use as a descrip­
tion a subpoena all sources of information and all records 
relied ipon in answering the interrogatories or which pertain 
or relatt to the information called for by the interrogatory.

(1) Specify the date and state of Defendant Company’s
incorporation.

(2) Sta-e the general nature of the Company's business, 
the states in which the Company is presently doing business, 
and the state which the Company presently maintains its 
corporate headquarters.

(3) State wh.ther any labor organization, since July, 1965,
has collective bargaining jurisdiction over any of Company's 
employees. If so, i’entify each and every such organization by

132 / / / ^



(a) local and national affiliation, (b) the jobs or group-of jobs 
in the bargaining unit it represents or represented; (c) dates of 
collective bargaining jurisdiction, and (d) the name and address 
of its current national and local Presidents.

(4) Identify by title, parties, effective date, expiration 
date and jobs or group of jobs in bargaining unit each and every 
collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Company and 
any labor organization listed in response to Interrogatory No. 3 
above at any time since July, 1965.

(5) State whether employees of the Company have, since July,
1965, ever been classified according to job or work assigned, 
and if so, as of July 2, 1965, January 27, 1967,and the date 
these Interrogatories are answered: (a) Name each and every
functional unit or sub-unit and each and every job classification 
within each such unit or sub-unit. (b) For each and every job 
classification named in response to subpart (a) above as of
Jyly 2, 1965, January 27, 1967,and the date these Interrogatories 
are answered, state: (i) all of the Company's criteria, subjective
or objective, for judging an applicant's qualifications for such 
job. (ii) specifically, the name, date of creation and description 
of any tests, written or oral, used to judge an applicant's 
qualification for such job. (iii) minimum and average or median 
wage rate for such job. (iv) official job descriptions, including 
source of such descriptions, and actual specific job duties for 
such job. (c) For each and every job classification named in 
response to subpart (a) above as of July 2, 1965, January 27, 1967,, 
and the date these interrogatories are answered, state (1) title 
of jobs and number of employees supervised by employee holding 
this job and (2) title of job held by supervisor of employee 
holding this job.

(6) State whether the Company has, since July 2, 1965, ever 
advanced employees to higher paying jobs along a line of job 
progression and if so: (a) Indicate the name and structure of each 
line of progression in effect at the Company as of July 2, 1965,

135

- 2 -

/ / M ^



or the date such line came into effect, whichever is later, 
showing the pattern of movement from one job to another up each 
line, and the title and then applicable rate of pay for each job.
(b) State whether any of the lines of progression referred to in
(a) above were merged, consolidated, separated, abolished, or 
otherwise restructured or changed at any time(s) after July 2, 1965. 
If so, further state: (i) the name of each such line of pro­
gression: (ii) the date(s) on which it was changed or restructured; 
(iii) the specific manner in which each such line was restructured 
or changed, showing the structure of the line and the pattern 
of movement from job to job after the change, and including any 
special rights of movement or job shifting reserved to incumbents 
in any of the lines, or any special seniority rights granted in 
connection with the change: (iv) the name, race, and rate of pay
of each occupant of each job in each such line of progression, 
at the time of its merger or restructuring; and their rate of 
pay and job classification following the change, (c) Indicate 
the name and the structure of each line of progression in effect 
at the Company as of the date these interrogatories are answered, 
showing the pattern of movement from one job to another up each 
line, and the title and applicable rate of pay for each such job;
(d) For each and every line of progression named in response to 
subparts (a) - (c) above, state the name and date of the source 
of authority (e.g.Company regulation, collective bargaining 
agreement, etc.).

(7) State whether the Company has, since July 2, 1965, ever 
used seniority as a factor to determine the employees1 right to 
promotion, transfer, layoff, termination or benefits. If so,
(a) Indicate the nature and extent of the seniority system 
in effect as of July 2, 1965, or the date a seniority system was 
first initiated, whichever is later, including) with regard to 
each of the rights, promotion, transfer, layoff, termination, 
benefits: (i) whether the seniority which governed each
determination was Company-wide, plant-wide, department-wide or

-3-

/ / 3 < z ,
134



job-wide seniority; (ii) whether the applicable seniority was 
determinative of such rights or one of several factors, and if the 
latter, state the other factors and their approximate relative 
weights in the determination. (b) State whether any of the 
senority systems referred to in subpart (a) above were modified 
in any fashion after July 2, 1965. If so, further state: (i) 
the date of each subsequent modification; (ii) the nature and 
extent of each of the more recent seniority systems with regard 
to the promotion, transfer, layoff, termination and benefits 
determinations, including (a) whether the seniority which 
governed each determination is Company-wide, plant-wide, department­
wide, or job-wide seniority. (b) Whether the applicable seniority 
was determinative of such rights, or one of several factors, and 
if the latter, state the other factors and their approximate 
relative weights in the determination. (c) Indicate which of the 
subsequent modifications described in response to subpart (b) 
above was in effect on January 27, 1967, and which is in effect 
on the date these interrogatories are answered. (d) For the 
system described in response to subpart (a) above and all subse­
quent modifications described in response to subpart (b) above, 
state (i) whether an employee could be transferred or promoted to 
any new department without loss of seniority accrued in his old 
department for the purposes of subsequent (a) promotion, (b) 
transfer, (c) layoff, (d) termination or (e) benefits. (ii) 
specifically, whether an employee in the Labor Section could be 
promoted to any new department without loss of seniority 
accrued in the Labor Section for purposes of subsequent (a) 
promotion (b) transfer (c) layoff (d) termination or (e) benefits, 
(e) For each and every seniority system described in response 
to subparts (a) or (b) above, state the name and date of the 
source of authority (e.g.Company regulation, collective bargaining 
agreement, etc. ) .

(8) As of July2, 1965, January 27, 1967, and the date these 
interrogatories are answered, state the number of white employees 
and the number of black employees employed by the Company.

- 4 -

135



(9) As of July 2, 1965, January 27, 1967, and the date these 
interrogatories are answered state the number of black employees 
and the number of white employees

(a) in each and every unit and sub-unit named in response 
to interrogatory No. 3 above.

(b) In each and every job classification named in response 
to Interrogatory No. 5 above.

(c) receiving the minimum and receiving the average or 
median wage rate for each job as indicated in response to 
Interrogatory No. 5 above.

(10) Since July 2, 1965, state the number of black employees 
and the number of white employees who (a) have been promoted from 
the job of laborer or janitor to any other higher paying job 
classification; (b) have transferred out of one department to 
another without loss of seniority rights in their former depart­
ment; (c) have transferred out of one department to another 
with loss of seniority rights accrued in their former department.

(11) State the departments and the job titles in which 
the Company has never employed a black employee.

(12) State the departments and the job titles in which 
the Company has never employed a white employee.

(13) Name each and every black employee who has ever held 
a supervisory position with the Company, if any, indicating for 
each the job classification number of employees supervised and 
dates of employment in this supervisory capacity.

(14) State whether the Company has ever used any formal 
testing procedure, written or oral, as part of its decision­
making process concerning hiring, appointment to any apprenticeship 
programs, job placement, promotion or wage rate of employees.

(15) If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is
affirmative, state for each and every testing device used by 
the Company since July 2, 1965:

(a) if published, the name and source and date of copy­
right of the test.

(b) if not published, the name and detailed description 
of the test.

- 5 -

136



(c) The dates during which the test has been used.
(d) the jobs and/or lines of progression for which the test 

is used.
(e) The nature of the decision for which the test is used 

(i.e.,hiring, appointment to apprenticeship programs, job 
placement, promotion, rate of pay).

(f) Whether the test used is the sole determinant of each 
decision and if not, the relative weight given to the testing 
determinant.

(g) The applicants who are required to pass the test as a 
condition of employment.

(h) The passing score, if any, on each such test, in terms 
of absolute score, not in terms of percentiles; or the scoring 
range considered adequate if there is no cutoff score.

(i) The name and title of the person or persons who administer
the test.

(j) The name and title of the person or persons who score 
the test.

(k) Whether the scorer sees the examinee or in any way 
knows the race of the examinee before the test is scored.

(l) Whether the test has been validated for the purpose 
used, and if so, the most recent date and place of validation.

(m) The name of the firm or person who validated the 
tests, and the date(s), methods, and results of such validation 
studies.

(n) The name and address of each Company official and each 
outside professional consultant who participated in any way in 
the decision to adopt the test.

(o) The number of blacks and the number of whites who 
have passed the test subsequent to its adoption and the scores 
for each such person by race, if there is a cutoff score.

(p) If there is no cutoff score for the test, then state 
the number of blacks and the number of whites who have received 
favorable decisions (hire, promotion, et al.) from the time the 
test became a requirement or factor for that decision.

(q) If the manner in which the test was used has ever been 
altered or discontinued, state the dates, nature and reasons
of these changes and the name and title of the Company officials

/ / £ f t

-6- 137



outside consultant or agency who made or approved the decision 
to discontinue or modify the test's use.

j

(16) Specifically identify by title, date, effecitve date, 
author, parties to agreement, and present custodian, every 
Company document, rule, collective bargaining agreement, memorandum, 
written policy, report or study which sets forth or reflects the 
information sought in the preceding interrogatory.

(17) State whether the Company has, since July 2, 1965, 
used any type of apprenticeship program to train or upgrade 
employees. If so, describe each such program in detail, in­
cluding, but not limited to:

(a) The dates during which such program(s) were used.
(b) Departments and/or job classifications into which 

apprenticeships program participants were to be placed both 
during and after the apprenticeship program.

(c) All qualifications for admission to the apprenticeship 
program, (including names and description of all tests):

(d) If there have been any modifications in the qualifications 
for admission or the jobs or departments for which training is 
received, indicate the date and nature of each and every modi­
fication.

(e) The Company's specific business purpose for each and 
every qualification listed in response to subparts (c) and (d) 
above.

(f) The number of blacks and the number of whites who have 
applied for admission to a Company apprenticeship program since 
July 2, 1965.

(g) The number of blacks and the number of whites who have 
been admitted to a Company apprenticeship program since July 2,

(h) The number of blacks and the number of whites who 
have completed a Company apprenticeship program since July 2,
1965, by being placed in a job by the Company for which the 
apprenticeship program provided essential training.

(i) Specifically identify by title, date, effective dates, 
author, parties to agreement and present custodion, every Company 
document, rule, collective bargaining agreement, memorandum,

-7- 1 3 8



written policy, report or study which sets forth or reflects the 
information sought in the preceding subparts (a) - (h).

(18) State whether the Company has, since July 2, 1965, 
offered any type of apprenticeship or recruitment program 
specifically aimed at training or recruiting blacks. If so, 
give details.

(19) State whether the Company now maintains or has ever 
maintained, since July 2, 1965, either formally or by custom, 
separate locker, shower or dining facilities or time cards racks 
for black and white employees. If so, state the dates during 
which these facilities were maintained separate, and the 
Company's specific business purpose for these separate facilities.

(20) With respect to each of the individually named 
plaintiffs, Freddie Eaton, Alphonse Creagh, Warren Eaton,
Lenon Thornton, Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, Lawson Harvey,
Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sims, Hermon Blackmon, Earl Lee Eaton, 
William Goodwin, Roosevelt Hurd, give:

(a) Date of application for employment, date of 
initial hire, initial job classification, and initial rate of 
pay:

(b) Educational level attained at time of hiring;
(c) The name of any test taken, the date(s) such test was 

taken, the purpose for which such test was taken, the score 
achieved, and whether or not such score was a 'passing' score;

(d) the date of each request for transfer or promotion, 
whether it was granted or denied and,, if denied, the reasons 
therefor;

(e) The date of each transfer or promotion, the name 
of the new job classification, and the new rate of pay;

(f) The date and amount of each wage increase;
(g) The annual gross income from the Company since 

July 2, 1965.
A. J. Cooper, Jr. 
J. U. Blacksher
Crawford & Cooper 
1407 Davis Avenue
Mobile, Alabama 36603

BY:

Jy U. BLACKSHER,' 
Attorney for Plaintiffs.
139



Mr. Paul Brock, Esq.
30th Floor
First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Mr. Otto Simon, Esq. 
Van Antwerp Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

W. L. Williams, Esq. 
E E O C
2121 - 8th Avenue No. 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Patricia E. Eames, Esq.
99 University Place 
New York, New York 10003



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

u. S. DISTRICT CGLiRTI
SOUTHERN DIVISION SOU. DlST. ALA.

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL., 
Plaintiffs,

-vs-
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

HARRY AUSTIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

- v s -

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

t-'lLED IN CLERK'? r!rnCt
M aR* <972

v 'UM", j.O’COf:'>lOR
CLERK

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 6648-71-T

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 6768-71-T

JOINT PRETRIAL DOCUMENT
Come the parties in the above styled cause and pur­

suant to the Court's Preliminary Pretrial Order file the 
following Joint Document:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 
PLAINTIFFS' CAUSES OF ACTION

1. For causes of action, plaintiffs allege in Count 
I, para. VI that the defendants have violated their rights under 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 
et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. I 1981, by 

maintaining policies and practices that discriminate against 
Negro employees of the defendant company in ways that deprive 
them of equal employment opportunities, including the following: 

(1) A promotional and seniority system, operating 

under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the defen­
dants, that discriminates against Negroes.

r-'-!'■ ■:?: ■
fc:



- 2 -

J  (2) A policy of employing Negroes only as 
janitors or laborers and thereafter restricting them to said 
positions, with the assistance of unvalidated and illegal tests.

(3) Pursuant to the policies alleged in (1) and
(2), a practice of segregating the lines of progression and 
inhibiting transfers out of those lines set aside for Negroes.

l/  (4) A policy of denying Negroes an equal oppor­

tunity to participate in apprentice and training programs by 
means, inter alia, of discriminatory qualification standards.

(5) A practice of maintaining physically segre­

gated locker and shower facilities and racks.
2. Plaintiffs allege in Para. VII that the defendant 

unions have cooperated with, acquiesced to, and/or approved of 
the defendant company's discriminatory policies as set out in 
paragraph VI by entering into collective bargaining agreements 
with the company which perpetuate said policies, all in vio­
lation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 
Civil Rights of 1866.

3. Para. IX alleges that the defendants have further 
violated the rights of the plaintiffs under said Civil Rights 
Acts by failing to correct, modify, or disavow the policies and 
practices set out in VI.

4. The plaintiffs allege in Count II of the complaint 
that the defendant unions have violated their duty of fair re­
presentation under 29 U.S.C. 8 151 et seq. by acquiescing in, 
authorizing, agreeing to and/or joining in the discriminatory 
policies and practices described in Count I, particularly by 
their failure to negotiate or attempt to negotiate collective 
bargaining agreements which eradicate said policies and prac­
tices. The defendant company has knowingly participated in or

1 r r* i'-iO



-3-

acquiesced to the unions' violation of the duty of fair repre­

sentation .
5. In addition, plaintiff Austin alleges the follo­

wing causes of action:
a. The defendant company violated his rights 

under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1866 by
(1) reprimanding and suspending him for 

sitting in and refusing to leave the Drawtwisting Inspection 
break area, which is allegedly reserved for female employees, 

even though white male employees sit there.
(2) permitting certain white employees to 

harass and endanger his safety and discharging him when he 
attempted to defend himself against an attack by one of these 

white employees.
b. The defendant unions violated their duty to 

fairly represent plaintiff in grievance proceedings connected 
with the incidents mentioned in paragraph a. above.

6. Relief Requested
(1) A declaratory judgment that the aforementioned 

actions of the defendants are in violation of the Civil Rights 
Acts of 1964 and 1866 and the National Labor Relations Act.

(2) A preliminary and permanent injunction against 
further maintenance of the aforementioned discriminatory policies 

and practices.
(3) Other necessary relief, including back pay 

and attorney fees.
CONTENTIONS OF FACT

y  1. The defendant company maintains a policy or prac­
tice of preferentially hiring white employees over blacks on 
account of race, as evidenced by the fact that blacks constitute 
only 8% of the employees at Courtaulds, while approximately 1/3 

of the work force in the Mobile area is black.



-4-

2. Blacks are systematically excluded from many jobs 
at Courtaulds, including journeymen jobs, supervisors, managers 
and officers, professionals and engineers, clerical and admini­

strative positions, and plant security.
3. The defendants operate a training program that 

discriminates against Negroes:
a. Contrary to the express provisions of past 

and present collective bargaining agreements, black employees 
with greater lengths of continuous service are restricted, in­
hibited, and discouraged from obtaining the skills required to 

perform higher rated jobs.
b. Blacks are systematically excluded from the 

apprentice program through devices such as discriminatory quali­
fication criteria, discriminatory testing and personal inter­
views, and discriminatory application of the results of tests 
and interviews.

4. The defendants operate a promotional and seniority 
system that discriminates against Negroes:

a. Until recent years, Negroes had no opportunity 
to obtain jobs other than janitor or laborer. All janitors and 
laborers were black. These jobs were not in any of the lines of 
progression and as such were "dead end" jobs from which there 
could be no advancement.

b. In or around 1967, the company began trans­
ferring laborer jobs into some lines of progression. But under 
the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (XI. I J), 
which provide that promotions, demotions, layoffs, etc. will be 
governed by classification or section seniority, rather than by 
plant seniority, black employees so transferred came into their
new sections at a serious disadvantage, and many suffered through



- 5 -

layoffs during reductions in force in spite of their much longer 

plant seniority.
c. There still remains a laborer section, which 

is predominately black and which is dead ended.
d. In 1967 the collective bargaining agreement 

was changed to allow laborers engaged in filter stripping (a 
job within the Labor Section) to enter the Rayon Viscose Section 
line of progression in a job parallel to the entry level job of 
Press Roll Operator. But present laborers were only allowed to 
apply for the filter stripper job in accordance with their Labor 
Section seniority, and they were permitted to bid on higher jobs 
only according to their new Viscose Section seniority.

e. Even when black employees were able to accu­

mulate section seniority outside of the Labor Section, numerous 
devices were and are being employed to discourage their advance­
ment and training. In many cases, new white applicants or less 
senior white employees are hired for higher jobs over Negro em­
ployees. In nearly all cases, subjective selection criteria 
are applied that seriously dilute the significance of black em­
ployees' seniority. The net effect has been almost total re­
striction of blacks to the bottom or least desirable jobs in 
the lines of progression. Many black employees have been 
discouraged from applying for jobs in other sections because of 
the high risk of layoffs due to loss of the benefit of their 
plant and old section seniority.

/ 5. The defendants utilize testing in a manner -that \

discriminates against Negroes:
^  a. The Kopas test battery used by the company

is unvalidated with respect to job relatedness and is not

racially validated. )
/ b. The tests are administered and their results i V

applied in a discriminatory fashion in both hiring and promotionI



- 6 -

of Negroes.
6. Plaintiff Harry Austin further contends:

a. The self-service snack bar area is supposed­
ly designed to be utilized exclusively by female employees.
Male employees are to use the facility only to purchase foods 
and drinks and to leave thereafter and not sit there. On some 
occasions plaintiff observed male white employees sitting at 
the table in the snack area with female employees. On one 
particular occasion, plaintiff saw a white male employee seated 
there with a black female employee, whereupon he purchased some 
food and sat down to eat with them. The white male left the 
area, and within a few minutes the Supervisor returned and asked 
plaintiff to leave. Plaintiff left and shortly thereafter went 
to the Manager of Industrial Relations Office to complain about 
it. An assistant in the office told him he would receive a 
written reprimand. Plaintiff did receive a reprimand two days 
later, on July 9, 1970.

employees seated in the break area, and on or about May 10,
1971, he went there again and sat down. He was asked to leave 
and refused, for which he was given an indefinite suspension.
On May 11, 1971, he was given another letter of reprimand and 
a definite suspension until May 19, 1971. The plaintiff's shop 
steward was present when he received the reprimand and suspension 
but refused and/or was instructed to say nothing on plaintiff's 
behalf.

"nigger," threatened and otherwise intimidated with impunity by 
two white male employees of Courtaulds who worked on his shift. 
Plaintiff reported some of these incidents to management, but

b. Plaintiff continued to observe white male

c Plaintiff subsequently was harassed, called



7-

no action was taken to discourage the outbursts of racism 
against him. Ke was placed in a hazardous work situation by 
one of the two men, who sent creels down into the area in 
which plaintiff had to perform his duties without hooking them, 
creating a danger of serious injury being inflicted on plaintiff. 
On January 7, 1972, while attempting diligently to perform his 
duties, plaintiff was attacked by one of these two men, Mr. 

Squires, who knocked him to the floor, cutting plaintiff's lip 
and bruising his jaw. Plaintiff defended himself against the 
blows as best he could. He received a hearing on January 11, 
1972, in the Personnel Office, where substantial evidence was 
adduced to show that Mr. Squires had first attacked plaintiff 
and had been harassing him for some time because of his race. 
Nevertheless plaintiff was discharged.

7. Courtaulds has not taken adequate affirmative 
action to eradicate the vestiges and present effects of its 
past unabashed discriminatory practices nor to publicize its 
purported change of policy to the black community who has been 
the subject of that discrimination.

8. The defendant unions have failed in their duty 
to fairly represent the class by negotiating collective bar­
gaining agreements which establish and perpetuate the afore­
mentioned discriminatory policies and practices and by failing 
fairly, actively, and aggressively to represent black employees 
aggrieved by said practices.

9. At the time the complaint was filed, plaintiffs 
maintained segregated facilities as set out in plaintiff's 
cause of action 1.(5).

i b l



- 8 -

COURTAULDS' STATEMENT OF DEFENSES 
AND CONTENTIONS OF FACTS

Courtaulds will raise as defenses the general issues 

and will deny all material allegations of the complaint not 

specifically herein admitted, including, but not being 

limited to, the allegations of the class and the relief 

sought by plaintiffs both upon their own behalf and on 

behalf of the members of the alleged class. Courtaulds will 

further deny that it has or does discriminate against Negro 

employees in any way or as charged; denies that it limits 

the employment and promotional opportunity of Negroes; denies 

that it restricts and limits the station, terms, conditions 

and privileges of the plaintiffs and other Negroes; denies 

that it has given improper or illegal tests; denies that it 

has job classifications and lines of progression based on 

race; denies any violation of Title 7 of the 1964 Civil 

Rights Act; denies any violation of 28 USC, §1331 and §1343; 

denies any violation of 42 USC §2000 C-5(f); denies any 

violation of 28 USC §2201 and §2202; and further denies any 

violation of 42 USC §1981 and of 29 USC §151. Courtaulds 

further denies that it refuses to permit Negroes to parti­

cipate equally in its apprenticeship training program and 

that its criteria for such programs are illegal in any way; 

denies that it maintains physically segregated locker and 

shower facilities or racks; denies that written charges



-9-

were filed timely; denies that all plaintiffs received 

their notice of right to sue letters on April 9, 1971; 

denies that the Commission had reasonable cause for be­

lieving that this defendant violated said Civil Rights 

Act of 1964; and denies each and every charge of discrim­

ination, illegality or unlawfullness alleged in or in­

ferrable from the complaint herein.

Courtaulds will plead as further defenses the 

following: That the tests given by it were and are legal

and are in the process of being validated or have been 

partially validated; that the plaintiffs herein have un­

reasonably refused to engage in conciliation proceedings, 

although asked to do so by the EEOC; that the claims set 

forth in said complaint were not timely filed; that the 

claims set forth in said complaint are barred by laches; 

that certain of the issues raised in said complaint lie 

within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor 

Relations Board; that the class which plaintiffs seek to 

represent is not sufficiently defined and plaintiffs do 

not set forth sufficient facts to show their right to repre­

sent the said class; that one or more plaintiffs are 

estopped to proceed further with this action or have waived 

their right to do so because of their conduct in partici­

pating in hearings, arbitrations and other proceedings 

concerning grievances; that there is a wide variance between 
the allegations in the charges filed by the plaintiffs 
herein and the issues sought to be raised by this suit; 

that the plaintiffs are limited in their claims in this 

action to those that might properly be raised from the 

allegations of their said charges filed with the EEOC;



- 10-

that no sufficient or adequate charge has properly been 

filed against each and both of the other defendants to 

this action; that one or more of the indispensable parties 

are not properly joined in this action; that no class action 

may be maintained as to each of the items of damages sought, 

separately, but not being limited to, back pay, transfer, 

promotion, etc.; that the class sought to be represented 

by the plaintiffs should be limited as to number, depart­

ments, dates of employment, plant and otherwise; that the 

alleged members of said class have, in many instances, not 

even been informed of the settlement offers made by Courtaulds 

or even of the pending litigation; that the plaintiffs have 

no standing to represent the alleged members of said class; 

that plaintiffs have not and cannot fairly and adequately 

represent their interests; that all or some of the plaintiffs 

have had many opportunities to advance and to bid on higher 

jobs, but have failed and refused to do so; that the matters 

complained of by plaintiffs are and have been justified and 

made necessary by safety and efficiency and by business 

purposes; that there is a functional relationship between 

the jobs in the various lines of progression in defendant's 

plant; that the tests complained of by the plaintiffs are 

reasonable and necessary for the safe and efficient operation 

of the plant and that, in this connection, the grades re­

quired to be passing for said tests have been reduced and 
are not a mandatory requirement for employment, transfer, 

promotion, etc.; that there has been no discrimination by 

sex or race; that the facilities complained of are not

i «_! i



- 11-

segregated and have not been segregated by race; that the 

facilities complained of by the plaintiff were those that 

had been set aside primarily as a break area or rest area 

for females, and that one of the plaintiffs insisted upon 

entering the same, although he knew that he was not 

supposed to do so; that the plaintiffs have made an election 

of remedies; that the alleged conduct of which the plaintiffs 

complain is not actionable prior to one year before the 

filing of the complaint; that one or both of said Union 

defendants were not properly named in the charge or in the 

charges filed herein; that back pay and other elements of 

relief sought may not properly be awarded to non-filing 

members of the alleged class and that one or more necessary 

parties have not been joined in this cause.

DEFENDANT COURTAULDS STATEMENT 
OF CONTESTED LEGAL ISSUES AND FACTS

This defendant expects to contest each legal issue 

claimed and raised by the plaintiffs in the two complaints 

as first above captioned and in the plaintiff's statement 

of legal issues and contentions of facts and anticipates 

that the plaintiff will contest the legal issues raised 

by defendant Courtaulds in its Contention of Facts and 

Theories of Defenses. Similarly, all facts not above 
agreed upon in the Statement of Uncontested Facts are 
expected to be contested.

105



J

-12-

UNCONTESTED FACTS

1. All of the plaintiffs were formerly employees 

of Courtaulds North America, Incorporated, and were 

formerly members of the Textile Workers Union of 

America and also of Local 1465, Textile Workers Union 

of America. Some of the plaintiffs still are employees 

and still are members of said union, as aforesaid.

2. The plaintiffs are or were Negro citizens of 

the United States and residents of Alabama.

3. Courtaulds North America, Inc. (hereafter called 

Courtaulds) is a corporation licensed to do business in 

the State of Alabama, County of Mobile, and in certain 

other states. It is engaged, among other things, in 

connection with the manufacture and production of nylon 

and rayon, which is distributed in interstate. It has a 

plant and offices in Mobile County and employs more than 

twenty-five persons.

4. Defendant Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of 

America (called TWA) and Textile Workers Union of America 

are labor organizations and engaged in industry which 

affects commerce. Said union is engaged in whole or in 

part in dealing with Courtaulds concerning grievances, 

labor disputes, rates of pay, hours and other terms or 
conditions of employment of production and maintenance 

employees at Courtaulds at its LeMoyne Plant, in Alabama, 

which is the plant in question involved in this litigation. 

TWA has more than twenty-five members.

/ 3 A l



5. Many, but not all, of the matters regarding 

compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employ­

ment of the members of said union employed at the LeMoyne, 

Alabama, plant of Courtaulds are in or have been, since, 

to-wit, November, 1958, governed to some extent by 

collective bargaining agreements entered into between 

said labor organizations and Courtaulds.

The defendant TWA has filed a separate response 

and has authorized the signing of its name to this 

response.

MISCELLANEOUS

f. U. BLACKSHER, 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

CRAWFORD & COOPER

PAUL W. BROCK,
Attorney for Courtaulds

OF COUNSEL:

HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON

BENJAMIN L. ERDREICH, 
Attorney for Textile 
Workers Union of America

OF COUNSEL:

COOPER, MITCH & CRAWFORD



-14-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of 

record in this case by depositing a copy of same in 

the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to 

said attorneys at their respective business addresses 

on this, the 8th day of March, 1972.

PAUL W. BROCK



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL. , jj
Plaintiffs 5

5
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., ET AL., CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 6648-71-T

Defendants. 
HARRY AUSTIN, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,
-vs-

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC., ET AL.,

5

5
5

U. S. DISTRICT COCrtT 
S O U  DIST. ALA.

FILED IN C L E R K r ~ICT
MAR ' <972

/'OR
CIVIL ACTION CLERK
NO. 6768-71-T

Defendants.

PRETRIAL DOCUMENT

Come defendants, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 
and Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of America (herein jointly- 
referred to as the "Unions") and file the following response to 
Preliminary Pretrial Order:

The Unions admit the facts set forth as Uncontested Facts 
in Joint Pretrial Document of Plaintiffs and Defendant Courtaulds.

2. In addition to denying all material allegations of the 
complaint not herein admitted, the specific defenses of the Unions 
are:

(a) The claims of the complaints are barred by laches or the 
applicable statute of limitations.

(b) The Unions, either one or both of them, were not a 
charged party before the E.E.O.C. prior to institution 
of these suits.

(c) Defendant Unions deny that Plaintiffs represent an 
appropriate class for purposes of instituting an action. 
Defendant Unions deny that they have maintained a policy,



practice, custom or usage of discriminating against Plaintiffs 
and other Negro persons similarly situated because of race 
or color with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, and 
privileges of employment, or have limited, segregated and 
classified employees of the company in ways which deprive 
Plaintiffs and other Negro employees equal employment oppor­
tunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as 
employees. Furthermore, it is denied that Defendant Unions 
have failed to act impartially and to fairly represent the 
interests of Plaintiffs and the class they allegedly repre­
sent, nor have Defendant Unions acquiesed in, cooperated 
or approved of conduct of the company which established, 
authorized, or perpetuated discrimination as aforedescribed.

(d) The Unions have no contractual or legal control over the 
hiring policies or practices of Courtaulds.

(e) The Unions have, through contract negotiations and utilization 
of the grievance machinery, attempted to provide employment 
policies which do not discriminate against Negroes and which 
provide equal employment opportunities for all employees.

3. The Defendant Unions contest the legal issues raised and 
asserted by Plaintiffs, in each complaint, as fully set forth in 
Plaintiffs' statement of legal issues and contention of facts. The 
Unions anticipate that Plaintiffs will contest the legal issues and 
defenses raised by them.

Ben-CT Erdreich
Counsel for Textile Workers Union 
of America, AFL-CIO, in Eaton and 
Austin, and for Local 14b5 TWUA in 
Austin.

Otto E. Simon . v - *
Counsel for Local 1465 TWUA in Eaton



-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We hereby certify that we have served a copy of the foregoing 
Pretrial Document on Counsel for all parties to this proceeding 
by hand delivering to their respective offices on this the 9th day 

of March, 1972.

Ben C. Erdreich

Otto E. Simon

1



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION
FREDDIE EATON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, 
J. U. Blacksher

COURTAULDS OF NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Defendants. 
Benj. L. Erdreich 
Otto E. Simon 
Paul W. Brock

HARRY AUSTIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiff,

V.
COURTAULD's OF NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 
No. 6648-71

CIVIL ACTION 
No. 6768-71

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING
This cause coming on to be heard on a regular 

pretrial hearing on the 9th day of March, 1972, and 
all parties being present in person or by counsel, the 
following action was thereupon taken:

1. The following pleadings and amendments were allowed:
Complaints and answers as filed.

2. It was agreed by all of the parties that 
the following are all of the issues in controversy in 
this cause :

PLAINTIFF
See response to preliminary pretrial order filed March 8, 1972.

DEFENDANT
See response supra.

/3'7&'162 B



3. The following facts are established by 
admissions in the pleadings or by stipulations of 
counsel at the pretrial conference:

See response supra.
4. The contested issues of fact are:

See response supra.
4b. The contested legal issues are:

See response supra.

- 2 -

16.



*r

5. It is ORDERED:
Within one week of the Clerk's publication 

of the docket setting this case for trial:

If the paragraph is marked (X)
k x ) (a) That each party in this case furnish 

counsel for the opposing party, for 
copying and inspection, all documents and exhibits that 
are to be used in the trial of this case.

( ) (b) That the parties exchange the names
of witnesses known or which reasonably 

should be known, this restriction not applying to rebuttal 
witnesses, the necessity of whose testimony reasonably 
cannot be anticipated before the time of trial.

( ) (c) All discovery is to have been accomplished.
(X) (d) That the parties file briefs with the

Clerk of this Court.
(X) (e) The authenticity of any documents or

exhibits is admitted unless it is spe­
cifically called to the attention of the Court and opposing 
counsel within 10 days of Clerk's publication of the docket.

( ) (f) If the case is to be tried to a jury, it
is directed that requests for instructions 

be submitted to the Court at the commencement of the case, 
subject to the right of counsel to supplement such requests 
during the course of the trial on matters that cannot rea­
sonably be anticipated.

(X) (g) The qualification of any expert whose
testimony is offered by deposition is 

admitted, unless it is specifically called to the Court's 
attention and opposing counsel within 10 days supra.

( ) (h) Doctor, medical and hospital bills are
admitted as reasonable unless specific 

objection is made to the Court and opposing counsel

( ) (i) All parties seeking special damages are
to furnish the other parties a list of their special damages.

( ) (j)
returns for 19

All parties seeking damages are to 
furnish the other parties income tax 
, 19 and 19

(X) (k) If there are expert witnesses, the attor­
neys must file, and submit to opposing counsel, a reasonably 
brief narrative form of their qualifications which are ad­
mitted unless called to the opposing counsel and court's 
attention within 10 days supra.

(X) (1) The response to the preliminary pretrial
order is incorporated and made a part of this order.

(X) (m) Counsel for the respective parties will
file with the court, and opposing counsel, suggested Find­
ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a Judgment and

164 -3- >/39t7CO



Order, all appropriately designated, u_, or before 10 days 
of Clerk's publication supra. The Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law are to be in a form sufficient, in the 
opinion of counsel, to sustain his position on appeal.

6. The probable length of the trial of this
case will be 10 days________________ •

7. The prospects of settlement of this case
are

It is further ORDERED by the Court that all 
of the above-named allowances and agreements be and the 
same are hereby binding upon all parties in the above- 
styled cause, unless this order be hereafter modified 
by order of the Court.

DONE this the 9th day of March, 1972 
at Mobile___________ _, Alabama .

Within 20 days from definition of class, the 
plaintiffs are to make a realistic offer of settlement to 
the defendant. Within 15 days from the offer, the defendants 
are to accept or make a counter-offer. If there is a counter­
offer, the plaintiff is to accept, reject, or make a counter­
offer within 15 days from the above date. If the parties 
believe the court can be of assistance during these nego­
tiations, they are to get in touch with the court not later 
than 10 days of the last date above set out and arrange 
for a conference.

UNITER STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

165 A & a -



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al., 
Plaintiffs,

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., et al.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
6648-71

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA. 

FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

MAY 5 1972
WILLIAM J. O’CONNOR 

CLERK
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

6768-71 a  s- s t r ic t  court
SOU. DIST. ALA.

FILED in CLERK'S OFFICE

M A Y  2 2 1972

WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR
---- - CLERK

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Comes now the defendant, COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA 
INC., and for answer to interrogatories propounded to it 
by the plaintiffs, says the following:

1. Courtaulds (Alabama) Inc. was incorporated in 
the State of Alabama on August 11, 1951. Corporate name 
was changed to Courtaulds North America Inc. on June 20,
1962.

2. Manufacture of viscose rayon staple fiber and 
nylon filament, doing business in Alabama and New York,
with principal customers in Southeastern states. Manufacturing 
plant located in Mobile County, Alabama, and corporate 
headquarters in New York City, New York.

/¥/$-



3. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, 

and its Local Union No. 1465, is the collective bargaining 

agent for all production and maintenance employees at 

Courtaulds' LeMoyne complex. TWUA was certified as the 

collective bargaining representative on July 23, 1958.

The General President is William Pollock, 99 University 

Place, New York City 10003, and the Local Union president 

is Hestle L. Salter, of 456 4th Avenue, Chickasaw, Alabama 
36611.

4. Collective bargaining agreements covering all 

production and maintenance employees at Courtaulds' LeMoyne 

complex were executed by TWUA and its Local Union No. 1465 

and Courtaulds North America Inc on October 26, 1967 and 

October 26, 1970, expiring on October 26, 1970 and October 

26, 1973, respectively. Supplemental agreements covering 

Nylon Plant employees only executed by TWUA and CNA on May 

5, 1966. (See Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, and 5)

5. Yes.

(a) July 2, 1965, and January 27, 1967: See

Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit No. 3.

January 24. 1972: See Exhibit No. 5.

(b) (i) July 2, 1965, and January 27, 1967:

New Hires:

Non-craft jobs: 10th grade education

or G.E.D. equivalency.

Apprentices: See Exhibit No. 1.

Crafts: See Exhibit No. 1.
Old Employees: See Exhibit No. 1.

1 7 -
- 2 -



5. (b)(i) January 24, 1972:

New hires:
Non-craft jobs: 10th grade

education or G.E.D. equivalency. 

Apprentices: See Exhibit No. 5.

Crafts: See Exhibit No. 5.

Old employees: See Exhibit No. 5.

In general good job qualifications also 

include proper intelligence, education aptitudes, skills, 

character, motivation, ability to be trained, past work 

history and performance, seniority, assorted other criteria, 

anticipated productivity, efficiency, attention to safety 

and ability to accomplish genuine business purposes. Kopas 

Personnel Tests have been given, but they are not used as a 

condition of employment, promotion nor of admission to the 

Apprentice Program.

(ii) July 2, 1965, January 27, 1967. and 

January 24, 1972: Apprentice Test:

Mechanical Comprehension Test - Form CC. Copyright 1949 by 

the Psychological Corporation. Multiple choice mechanical 

aptitude test.

(iii) July 2, 1965, and January 27, 1967:

See Exhibit No. 1.

January 24, 1972: See Exhibit No. 5.

(iv) None.

(c) See Exhibits attached.



6. Yes.
(a) July 2, 1965: See Exhibit No. 1, Appendix "A"

May 5, 1966: See Exhibit No. 3.

July 4, 1966: See Exhibit No. 3.
October 26, 1967: See Exhibit No. 4, Appendix "B". 

October 26, 1970: See Exhibit No. 5, Appendix "B".

(b) Yes.

(i),(ii),(iii)

Stores Section: See Exhibits No. 1 and No. 4.

Labor Section: See Exhibits No. 1 and No. 4.

Filter Stripping Assignment: See Exhibits

No. 1 and No. 4.

Chemical Laboratory: See Exhibits No. 1 and

No. 4.

Spinning Section: See Exhibits No 1, No. 4

and No. 5.

Viscose Section: See Exhibits No. 1, No. 4

and No. 5.

Nylon Plant: See Exhibits No. 3 and No. 6.

Nylon Plant: See Exhibits No. 3, No. 4 and No. 6. 

(iv) See Exhibits No. 12, covering employees in

jobs listed above prior to and after the dates 

of merging or restructuring.

(c) See Exhibit No. 5.

(d) Answered in 6(b) above.

7. Yes.

(a)(i)(ii) See Exhibit No. 1.

I-4-



7. (b) Yes.

(a)(b)(c):

See Exhibits No. 1, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5.

(d) In certain instances, yes. See Exhibit 
No. 7.

(e) Shown above.
8. July 1, 1965:

711 whites and 76 blacks in bargaining unit. 

January 27, 1967:

674 whites and 81 blacks in bargaining unit. 

January 23, 1972:

531 whites and 146 blacks in bargaining unit.

9. (a) (b)(c): See Exhibit No. 8.

See Exhibit No. 9.

See Exhibit No. 10.

See Exhibit No. 11.

10. (a) See Exhibit No. 13.

(b)(c) All employees transferring from one depart­

ment to another lose seniority in their 

former department after 12 months. See 

Exhibits No. 1, No. 4 and No. 5. The only 

exceptions are Laborers transferring to the 

Filter Stripping job and Laborers moving 

into the Sundry Operator job.

11. Blacks have been in all Sections and Departments.

12. Whites have been in all Sections and Departments.

/-5- 174



13. Albert G. Dees promoted from Fork Lift Operator in 

Traffic Section of Production Department to job of 

Labor Foreman in the Engineering Department on June

16, 1971. Supervises 18 Janitors and Laborers.

14. Yes.

15. (a) See answer to previous questions.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) 1964, 1965.

(d) Crafts.

(e) Appointment to apprenticeship program.

(f) Not sole determinant, but must pass test.minimum 

score.

(g) No.

(h) 35 out of a possible 60.

(i) The Personnel Department.

(j) The Personnel Department.

(k) Yes.

(1) In the process of being done.

(m) Psychological Corporation.

(n) Donald C. Smith, Manager of Industrial Relations, 

Courtaulds North America Inc.

(o) Six blacks and 101 whites have passed the test.

(P) Not applicable.

(q) Initial passing score was 45 out of 60. 

Lowered to 40 then to 35. Lowered to admit 

more into program. Change approved by Donald 

C. Smith.

, i i u /-6-



16. See preceding exhibits.

17. Yes.

(a) See Exhibits No 1, 4 and 5.
(b) Same as above.
(c) See (a) above.
(d) See Exhibits No 1, 4 and 5.

(e) See 5(b) and Exhibits No. 1, 4 and 5.

(f) Between January, 1965, and April 1, 1972, 
there were 311 applications for the Apprentice Program.
Of these, 239 were by whites, 64 were by blacks, and the 

race of eight of the applicants cannot be determined.

(g) 5 blacks and 77 whites admitted to Apprentice 

Program since July 2, 1965.

(h) One black and 21 whites have completed the 

Apprenticeship Program, although there are more than one 

black craftsman.

(i) Yes. See exhibits.

18. Yes. See exhibits. The passing score for the 

Apprentice Program was lowered from 45 to 40 to 35 in 

anticipation that more blacks would be able to pass the 

test. This has proven to be the case.

Courtaulds has recruited for black employees at 

the Southwest State Technical Institute of Mobile and at 

Carver Vocational School. It has contacted one or more 

black leaders in the community and has made specific re­

quests for black nurses and chemists. It has worked with 

the Department of Labor in attempting to hire greater 

numbers of blacks, and, on at least one occasion, did hire 

four of ten black applicants referred by the United States



Department of Labor. Those who were not hired were found 

unacceptable for reasons not relating to race. In short, 

Courtaulds has engaged actively in a program of employing 

more blacks, which is reflected by the fact that, as of 

July 2, 1965, the effective date of the Civil Rights Act, 

Courtaulds had 76 black employees and 711 white employees 

in the bargaining unit. As of January 23, 1972, Courtaulds 

has 146 such black employees and 531 such white employees, 

or almost exactly double the number of blacks.

19. No.

20. See data included in Exhibits No. "A", covering 

each plaintiff.

PAUL W. BROCK, Trial 
Attorney for Defendant 
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC.

OF COUNSEL:
HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36601

STATE OF ALABAMA:

COUNTY OF MOBILE:

This day appeared before me, the undersigned notary public 
in and for said County in said State, Paul W. Brock, who, being 
first duly sworn by me, doth depose and say that he has caused 
an investigation to be made pertaining to the foregoing interro­
gatories and that he is informed and believes, and, based upon 
such information and belief, states that the foregoing answers 
are true and correct.

PAUL W. BROCK

•L ^  A_ 7 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this, the day of
, ‘  / /■ /

' March', 1972. ''->/?// ■ t T //>

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE AT LARGE
7  / y / ^

- 8 -



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

0 lS T  a ^ ° 'JX t'N cieRK* L*-
0^/CfFREDDIE EATON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,
-vs-
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.
HARRY AUSTIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,
-vs-

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,

JiJH 2,2
197?

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 6648-71

Co^o*

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 6768-71

Iffi

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS 1 SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO 
_________ DEFENDANT COURTAULDS________

TO: Paul Brock, Esq.
3000 First National Bank Building
Mcbile, Alabama

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiffs request, pursuant to 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendant 
answer under oath within thirty (30) days after service the 
following written interrogatories. In answering, defendant is 
requested to identify separately and in a manner suitable for 
use in a subpoena all sources of information (whether human, 

documentary or other) and all records maintained by the defendant relied 
upon in answering the interrogatories or which pertain or 
relate to the information called for by the interrogatories.
In lieu of identifying particular documents, when such identifi­
cation is requested, said document may, at the defendant's option, 
be attached to the response to those interrogatories.

M * '17 8



2

Unless a different definition is indicated in context, the 
terms "Courtaulds", "Company", or "Plant" refer to the oper­
ations of the defendant Courtaulds North America, Inc., at Mobile, Ala­
bama. Other terms are used in accordance with their usual meaning 
in the industry.
1. State whether with respect to permanent assignments, any 
jobs, series of jobs constituting lines of progression, or de­
partments at the plant have ever been restricted to or held
by white employees only, whether by rule, agreement, tradition, 
or practice. If so, please state for each such instance:

1) The name of each department, line of progression, 
or job which was so restricted or held, and the time 
period when this condition prevailed;
2) The means by which such restrictions or de facto 
exclusions were accomplished;
3) whether such restrictions were at any time removed, 
and if so, when, by whom, how, and subject to what 
special rights (including recall rights) of employees who 
previously held such positions;
4) the title, date, location, custodian, and contents 
of any documents containing or relating to either the 
restrictions or their removal.

2. For each job, line of progression, or department identified 
in answer to interrogatory 1. above, state the following 
information:

1) name and original hire date of first black to hold 
the pertinent positions;
2) date when those positions were first held by a black 
person;
3) number of whites and blacks now holding the positions.



3

3. State whether any jobs, series of jobs constituting lines 
of progression, or departments at the plant have ever been 
restricted to or held by black employees only, whether by rule, 
agreement, tradition, or practice. If so, please answer for 
each such instance, all the questions posed by parts (1) to (4) 
of interrogatory 1. above.
4. For each job, line of progression, or department identified 
in answer to interrogatory 3. above, state the following informa­
tion :

1) name and original hire date of first white person 
to hold the pertinent positions;
2) date when those positions were first held by white 
persons;
3) number of whites and blacks now holding the positions.

5. If there are any bargaining unit jobs which have never, 
as of the date of these interrogatories, been held by a black 
person, specifically identify each such job by title, line of 
progression, and departments, and state the present number of 
white incumbents and the reasons why no blacks have ever held 
the j ob.
6. If there are any bargaining unit jobs which have never, 
as of the date of these interrogatories, been held by a white 
person, specifically identify each such job by title, line of 
progression, and departments, and state the present number of 
black incumbents and the reasons why no whites have ever held 
the j ob.

179



4

7. State the name, race and permanent last job held of 
every employee who has been laid off at any time since July 1,
1967. Also indicate dates of layoff and recall for each such 
employee.

8. List all jobs which are or since 1960 have been considered 
open to new hirees, i.e., entry-level jobs, specifying depart­
ment or line of progression for each such job.
9. A. State whether the company has a rule, tradition or 
practice of excluding blacks from hiring into any entry level jobs. 
If so, answer parts (1) - (7) below.

B. State separately whether in fact, regardless of company 
policy or practice, there are any entry jobs into which the com­
pany had not hired any blacks as of (i) July 2, 1965, (ii)
July 2, 1968, (iii) the date of these interrogatories. If so, 
answer parts (3) - (7) below.

1) the date of origin, source reason, and documentary 
evidence (if any) of the modification or elimination of 
the exclusionary policy or practice;

2) the date, source, reason, and documentary evidence 
(if any) of the modification or elimination of the ex­
clusionary policy or practice;
3) the number of whites hired into that job from 1960 - 
July 1, 1965, from July 2 - December 30, 1965, and during 
each calendar year since 1966;
4) the name, qualifications, and hire date of the first 
black hired into that job;

180



5

5) the number and hire periods of blacks hired into the 
job since the first such hiring;
6) the number of whites and blacks presently holding 
that job;
7) the qualifications for hiring into that job since 

1960.
10. State separately whether there are any entry level jobs 
into which the company had never hired a white person as of 
(i) July 2, 1965, (ii) July 2, 1968, (iii) the date of these 
interrogatories. If so, please state:

1) the number of blacks hired into that job from 1960 - 
July 1, 1965, from July 2 - December 30, 1965, and during 
each calendar year since 1966:
2) the name and hire date of the first white person hired 
into that job;
3) the number of blacks and whites presently holding 
that job;
4) the qualifications for hiring into that job since 1960.

11. List by name and race all persons, white and black, who have 
held laborer positions at any time since July 2, 1965. For each 
person listed please indicate further:

1) date of initial hire;
2) whether hired as laborer;
3) dates and details of all subsequent promotions, trans­
fers, or other permanent job changes outside the laborer 
category.

181



6

12. List by name all white persons hired as laborer prior to 
July 2, 1965. If there are any, answer parts (1) and (3) of 
the preceding interrogatory as to them, and further (4) indicate 
their current job classification or date and title of last job 
held at the plant.

13. A. Is the decision as to where a newly hired employee 
will be placed initially usually made after he is hired, or is 
an applicant hired only for a specific vacancy?

B. Are applications accepted only when vacancies occur, 
or may applicants file an application which will be reviewed 
each time a new employee is to be hired? If applications are 
kept on file for a period of time, for how long is it considered 
active?

14. State whether persons referred or recommended by incumbent 
employees have ever been granted hiring preference over other 
applicants. If so, specify when, how much, and for what jobs.
15. For the period July 2, 1965 to December 30, 1965, and for 
each calendar year since 1966, state:

1) the total number of black applicants;
2) the total number of white applicants;
3) the number of blacks hired;
4) the number of whites hired;

16. Specifically state which jobs in the plant are clerical in 
nature, and in which department and (if applicable) line of pro­
gression or bargaining unit that job is grouped. For each job 
listed, please state:

1) whether any blacks have ever been hired into the job;

182



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL. , 
Plaintiffs, 

V.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC. , ET AL.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

V.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

)
)
)) CIVIL ACTION
)) No. 6648-71-P
)
)
)

)
)
)
)) CIVIL ACTION
)) No. 6768-71-P
)
)
)

AMENDED ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND
________ DEFINITION OF CLASS_______

I. AMENDED ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION
The order of this court dated February 24, 

1972, consolidating the cases of Eaton v. Courtaulds, 
Civil Action No. 6648-71-P, and Austin v. Courtaulds, 
Civil Action No. 6786-71-P, is hereby amended to pro­
vide consolidation for certain issues only. Rule 42(a), 
F. R. Civ. P. Specifically, the Austin case is joined 
to Eaton v. Courtaulds for resolution of the following 
general issues:

1) discrimination in the promotional and 
seniority systems which limits employ­
ment and promotional opportunities;

2) discrimination in compensation, terms, 
conditions and privileges through the

l . 7
& i



j ^se^of_£rer,enipJLQyment—-tcGta 7—

3) discrimination in job classifications 
/' and lines of progression which denies

(i equal employment opportunities;
4) discrimination in selection of persons 

to participate in the apprenticeship
f training program; and
)
j 5) discrimination in maintenance of racially 

segregated lockers, shower facilities,
'and racks.

The Austin v. Courtaulds suit will remain 
an independent one for purposes of those issues which 
are unique to it. Thus, the issues of harassment and 
discharge on account of race will continue to be liti­
gated in that case.

II. CLASS DEFINITION FOR CONSOLIDATED CASES 
For purposes of injunctive relief, the 

class for litigation of the five consolidated issues 
is defined a past, present,_and future Negro em­
ployees of Courtaulds' rayon and nylon plants who are 
members or eligible to be members of Local 1465, Textile 
Workers Union of America and who have been employed at 
Courtaulds for some period since July 2, 1965^ The 
court finds that this class action meets the requirements 
°I Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), F. R. Civ. P., that ihe named 
plaintiffs in both casft.s.have*—s-tandi-nEr'l/O'-raTse~the— 
solidated issues for purp.QS.es^i-iuJ^unc.ti.ve,-re-liei-anjl 
that the issues have ..been._rai.se_d-.in...char.ge-s— fileci—with

■ 0 5



the EEOC. Oatf s v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 
496 (5th Cir. 1968).

For purposes of back pay relief, the sub­
class is defined as all Negro employees presently em­
ployed at the Courtaulds nylon plant who are members 
or eligible to become members of Local 1465, Textile 
Workers Union of America. The court finds that this 
class action meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 
(b)(2), F. R. Civ. P. Furtner, the court finds that 
those named plaintiffs who are presently employed at 
Courtaulds nylon plant have the requisite standing to 
raise the issue of back pay. Back pay relief for 
those plaintiffs who are not presently employed at 
Courtaulds would be improper since it would relate 
exclusively to money damages, Robinson v. Lorillard,
444 F.2d 791, 802 (4th Cir. 1971); 3B Moore's Federal 
Practice, Para. 23.40, p. 23-654 (2nd ed. 1969), and 
would not remedy present and continuing effects of the 
past discrimination. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 420 F.2d 
1225, 1230 (4th Cir. 1970).

III. NOTICE FOR CONSOLIDATED CASES
For the fair conduct of this action, it 

is determined that notice should be given to the sub­
class defined for back pay relief which will allow the 
members to intervene and present claims. Rule 23(d)(2), 
F. R. Civ. P. Appropriate notice will consist of signs 
or posters located at prominent locations and bulletin
boards at Courtaulds nylon plant and at the meeting

\

-3-

2 0  j
/df/^



places of Local 1465, Textile Workers Union of America. 
The signs or posters shall describe the nature of the 
present action in clear and complete terms, but shall 
mention that injunctive and other appropriate relief 
is being sought and shall not mention back pay sp- 
cifically. The sign shall also indicate that those 
who desire to participate in the suit may do so by 
completing an intervention form. Such form shall be 
attached to the sign or poster or located in close 
proximity thereto. The intervention forms shall in­
dicate the name and address of the person desiring to 
intervene, a statement that he understands the nature 
of the action and desires to intervene, and a short 
statement of his claim including the positions that 
he has held at Courtaulds and the time periods for 
each. The sign or poster shall also state the deadline 
for the submission of these intervention forms.

All parties to this suit shall submit to the 
court within seven (7) days of the date of this order, 
a proposal as to the form of the poster and interven­
tion form. The court will then rule on the appropriate 
form and will direct the plaintiffs in this action to 
proceed with their preparation. A deadline for inter­
vention will be set at that time. Plaintiff is to 
bear the cost of notice.

IV. CLASS DEFINITION FOR REMAINING ISSUES 
IN AUSTIN V. COURTAULDS
No class definition is possible at the

present time since there is some question as to whether

-4-

2 l ; / S'ScLy



the named plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect 
the interests of the class he seeks to represent.
Rule 23(a)(4), F. R. Civ. P. A separate hearing, as 
per the Fifth Circuit decision of Huff v. N. D. Cass 
Co., (5th Cir. No. 71-2842 decided April 24, 1972) 
will be set at a later time on this issue. If it 
should be determined that the representation is 
adequate, the tentative class definition would be all 
Negro employees of Courtaulds nylon plant who have 
been discharged since July 2, 1965 for racial reasons 
and who are members or eligible to become members of 
Local 1465, Textile Workers of America. Such deter­
mination, of course, is subject to being altered or 
amended at any time before the decision on the merits. 
Rule 23(c)(1), F. R. Civ. P.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.
FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE 

J 4 - r- DAY OF AUGUST 1972 
MINUTE ENTRY NO. u

Done, this the day of August, 1972.

UNITED STATES DISTRTCT”JUDGE

-5-

- 1 6



I

J

IN THE UNITED 3TATES DISTRICT COURT TOR 
TJIE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, Ef AL., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)V. ) CIVIL ACTION
)

COURTAULDS NORTH ) No. 6643-71-P
AMERICA, INC., ET AL., )

)Defendants. )

HARR? L. AUSTIN, )
)

Plaintiff, )
)V. )
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
COURTAULDS NORTH No. 6768-71-P
AMERICA INC. , ET AL., )

)Defendan-a. )

CORRECTION O' DEFINITION
D OIL Ht OH NOTICE.

The A m e nde d Order f CoasclidatiOi a ad 
Definition o i Class, issued oy tUiS coart oa 
August i e ,  1072, is ucueby CORRECTED as fallows:

Page 3, lir.es 5, 11, and 23, "nylon" 
is changed to "rayon.”
In accordance wita the aforementioned court 

order of August 14, 1972, the parties have submitted 
proposals as to the fora of the poster notice and 
clai_ of intervention. The court baa esamined tnese 
proposals and accepts defeat.;.at Courtauld's Interven­
tion Fora (see attached Exhibit A) with no changes. 
The Notice to All Black Employees of the Rayon i: ant

i( 212



(see attaci;ed Exhibit B) is also approved with the 
following correction:

The second sentence will read -
"The lawsuit seeks an injunction 
to prevent this and also seek3 
back pay.M

The court further approves plaintiff's
Notice to Class (see attached Exhibit C) with the 
following changes:

Page 1, line 15,fj"said" is 
changed to "this".
Page 2, line 22, Paragraph I 
is deleted.
Page 3, line 4, "say” is 
changed to "should".
Page 2, line 5, "notice" is 
changed to "poster".

Plaintiff is directed within 5 days of
the entry of this order, to prepare posters and 
forms and locate them at prominent locations anu 
bulletin boards at Courtaulun rayon plant and at the- 
neeting places of Local 1465. The posters are to be 
of reasonable- sine aad are to contain the court ap­
proved notice (Exhibit B). The z o r e  complete notice 
(Exhibit C) aad the intervention forn (Exhibit A) 
are to be attached to each of the posters ia suffi­
cient quantity to allow access by all interested 
parties. The intervention forms are to be completed 
and returned to the court by October 27, 1972.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.

FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE

19.ZS., MINUTE ENTRY'M o  co'-ZS-, MINUTE ENTRY~ ■jonr'i

21
/(?/&'



■)

INTERVENTION FORM

(YOU DO NOT NEED TO FTT.L THIS IN UNLESS YOU WANT TO 

JOIN IN CIVIL ACTION 6648-71 AND SUE COURTAULDS 

AND THE UNIONS)

(1) I have read the notice to which this form is 
attached and understand that Civil Action 6648-71 is a 
lawsuit claiming that Courtaulds North America Inc., 
Textile Workers Union of America and Local 1465, Textile 
Workers Union of America, have illegally acted against 
me and other Negroes working in the Rayon Plant.

(2) I want to join in this lawsuit as a plaintiff 
and sue Courtaulds and the Unions.

(3) I wish to retain my own lawyer to represent
me. (YES)___________  (NO)_________________.

(4) Since my employment at Courtaulds, I have held 
the following jobs for the periods of time indicated:

'JOB PERIODS OF TIME HELD
FROM - TO_______

(5) If, and only if,’ you wish to join in the above 
lawsuit and sue Courtaulds and the Unions, you should de­
tach this form and return or mail it to the Clerk, United 
States District Court, 213 Federal Building, Mobile, Ala., 
36602, not later than September 15, 1972. PLEASE PRINT YOUR:

NAME:_____________________________________________________
MAILING ADDRESS:________________________,_________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER:___

WITNESSED BY:

EXHIBIT A

DATE:

SIGNED:

214
J L ^



NOTICE TO ALL BLACK EMPLOYEES

OP TUB HAYON PLANT

A LAY'SO IT HAS BEEN FILED BY SOME BLACK EMPLOYEES 

OF THE RAYON PLANT AGAINST C0URTAULD3 NORTH AMERICA 

I N C . , LOCAL 1465 OF THE TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF 

AMERICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS OF 

AMERICA CHARGING TEEM WITH DISCRIMINATING AGAINST 

BLACK EMPLOYEES IN THE RAYON PLANT WITH REFERENCE 

TO THEIR JOBS AND WORKING CONDITIONS. TEE LAWSUIT 

SEEKS AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THIS AND ALSO SEEKS 

BACK PAY. NO BLACK EMPLOYEE OF THE RAYON PLANT IS  

ASKED TO JOIN IN 'THIS LAWSUIT OR HAS TO DO 3 0 , BUT 

ANY SUCH EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT TO BO £0 AND SHOULD 

READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE IF  INTERESTED.

EXHIBIT B



I

TO ALL NEGRO EMPLOYEES OF TEE COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, 
INC. RAYON PLANT WHO ARE MEMBERS OR ELIGIBLE TO BECOME 
MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1465, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA.

Pursuant, to P.ule 23(b) (2) anti 23(U) (2) 
of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure, you are 
hereby notified that there is not? pending in this 
Court a civil action against the Defendants,
Courtaulds North America Inc., Textile Workers Union 
of America, and Local 1455, Textile Workers Union of 
America, filed by Plaintiffs, Freddie Eaton, Alphonse 
Creagh, Warren Eaton, Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan,
Lawson Harvey, Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sluts, Ecrnan 
Blackmon, Earl Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin, and 
Roosevelt Hurd, individually and on behalf of all 
other Negro employees in the Rayon Plant at Courtaulds 
North Arteries Inc., LeMoyne, Ala bans.

This lawsuit charges the Defendants with 
violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1564,
42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., and the Civil 
Rights Act of 1356, 42 U.S.C. Section 1S31, by dis­
criminating against Negro employees on account of 
their race in ways that deprive thea of equal em­
ployee nt opportunities. Specifically, the Plaintiffs 
allege that the Defendants are engaged in the follow­
ing type3 of discrimination;

(I) discrimination in the promotional and 
seniority systems which limits employ­
ment . ::d promotional opportunities;

EXHIBIT C ' *-

NOTICE TO CLACS

216



✓

(2) discrimination in compensation, terms, 
conditions and privilege3 of employment 
through the use of pre-employment tests;

(3) discrimination in job classifications 
and lines of progression which denies 
equal employment opportunities;

(4) discrimination in selection of persons 
to participate in the apprenticeship 
training program; and

(5) discrimination in maintenance of racially 
segregated lookers, shower facilities, 
and racks.

This notice is not to be understood £5 £H 
expression of say opinion by this Court ns to the 
merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted by 
either side, but is set forth for the sole purpose 
of informing you of the pendency of this litigation 
so that yoa i&ay inake appropriate decisions as to 
what step you may wish to take in relation to this 
lawsuit.

The above named Plaintiffs are asking this 
Court to enjoin these allegedly discriminatory prac­
tices and grant such other relief as say be appro­
priate to themselves and to other members of the class.

Now, therefore, TAKE NOTICE:
I. As a member of the Plaintiff class, you 

will automatically enjoy the benefits of any injunc­
tive relief the Court may order for the class as a 
whole. However, if you feel you have been injured

- 2 -

217
/6>Scis



by the above described alleged discriminatory prac­
tices in a way that would aake appropriate an award 
of back pay to you individually, you should complete 
one of the intervention forms attached to this 
poster and return it to the Clerk by October 27, 
1S72, and the Court will consider your back pay 
ciai-i.

II. Any member of the Plaintiff class who 
does not request exclusion tiay, if he desires, enter 
aa appearance through counsel of his own choosing; 
otherwise he will be represented by counsel for the 
above named Plaintiffs.

// ___________________
um^l) S xhTLh Dihii-ICf j-judL

218



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL
Plaintiffs

vs CIVIL ACTION
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., ET AL

No. 6648-71-P

Defendants

HARRY L. AUSTIN Ub( 0 1972

V S

Plaintiff WILlwiw J .  O'CONNOR

CIVIL ACTION
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., ET AL.

No. 6768-71-P

Defendants.
ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT COURTAULDS TO 
PLAINTIFFS' SECOND INTERROGATORIES

1. Courtaulds has never had any rule, agreement or 
policy restricting assignments, jobs, lines of progression 
or departments by race. By custom, the great majority, if 
not all, of black employees at Courtaulds prior to 1964 
worked in the Labor Section. By affirmative action on its 
part, commencing in 1964, Courtaulds took a variety of steps 
leading to the placing of black employees in the lines of 
progression. These steps were numerous and varied. They 
included, in part, the plant-wide posting of jobs for bidding 
in 1964, the establishment of the Entry Operators and Sundry 
Operators jobs in 1965 (which were made entry level jobs for 
all black and white employees, from which entry level jobs 
employees could bid out into the lines of progression), the 
establishment of the filter stripping job as one of two 
entry level jobs in the Viscose Section of the Rayon 
Plant and the merging of the bulk of the Labor Section into 
the Sundry Operators job in October of 1968. Many other

U 7 ^



I
i
'

I
!;

■

'

I
I
i
■

- 2 -

steps have been taken by Courtaulds, and for a more detailed 
explanation of these, you are referred to the answers to the 
previous interrogatories propounded by you and also to the 
depositions of Messrs. Donald Smith and Donald McVay, taken 
by you over the course of some three days, during which all 
of the above transactions were explored fully and in detail.

2. You will recall that when you took the depositions 
of Messrs. Donald Smith and Donald McVay, you were given 
seniority lists showing the names of all employees, their 
classifications by seniority and their plant seniority. The 
names on these lists were identified, at your request, by 
race. You are respectfully referred back to these lists 
and to any other seniority lists you wish for the answers
to this interrogatory.

3. See preceding answers.
4. See preceding answers.
5. This information has been given to you previously in 

the seniority lists which you have obtained. Attached as
an exhibit to these answers is the Courtaulds seniority 
list of June 18, 1972, upon which the employees have been 
identified by race. If any black employees have not held a 
specific job it is probably because they have not bid for that 
particular job vacancy when it appeared, the reasons for 
which lie within their own personal knowledge, or there has 
been no such vacancy, or the particular black employee in 
question may have bid, but has not had sufficient seniority 
to entitle him to it. In other words he may have been out­
bid by some other employee, either white or black, with 
greater applicable seniority. There are a large number of 
employees both black and white, who prefer to remain in 
their present jobs, either because they are "day" jobs,

226



around which they have arranged their car pools, family 
obligations, etc., because they simply like the jobs they 
are doing in preference to the ones above in the lines of 
progression, because they like their present foreman and 
supervisor and for a variety of other reasons not neces­
sarily known to Courtaulds.

6. See answers to preceding interrogatories. However, 
to the present knowledge of the undersigned, the only 
bargaining unit job never held by a white is the job of 
Maid. There has only been one Maid at the same time in the 
Bargaining unit, and this position was actually created
and filled by the black women who have held it in order to 
prevent terminating them from other jobs which they had held 
and which they were not performing satisfactorily.

7. See attachment, which will be supplied within the 
next several days.

8. See attached copy of 1961 contract and refer to 
previous exhibits furnished you in response to your first
set of interrogatories. Also, refer to depositions of Messrs. 
Donald Smith and Donald McVay and documents attached to or 
examined by you in connection with those depositions.

9. A No 
B No

10. No
11. See seniority lists and other documentary infor­

mation previously furnished to you.
12. See seniority lists.
13. A Newly hired employees are usually hired into

the Sundry Operators job in Rayon or into the Entry Operators 
job in Nylon. They bid from these entry jobs into the lines 
of progression.

] 20 C i



/"'N

-4-

B Applications are accepted more or less contin­
uously and are kept for a one year period of time. Va­
cancies may be filled from this old application file or 
they may be filled otherwise.

14. If Courtaulds has a current vacancy at any 
given time and there is a qualified applicant present, 
willing and able to fill the job, whether that employee 
be white or black, he or she will probably be hired at 
that time in preference to going back to a one to twelve 
month old job application file and trying to locate some 
person in that file who, after that passage of time has 
probably obtained emgLcyment elsewhere if he was ever 
willing to work in the first place. For example, one
of the named plaintiffs in this case is Freddie Eaton.
Not only does Courtaulds employ Freddie Eaton, but it also 
employs six of his brothers. Undoubtedly, Freddie Eaton 
recommended his brothers from time to time as they wanted 
and needed employment and they did not just wander in by 
accident.

15. (1). (2). The application blanks furnished by 
Courtaulds do not make reference to race, because, as 
Plaintiff's counsel knows, Courtaulds is an equal oppor­
tunity employer, and it is Courtaulds' understanding that 
it would be improper under numerous regulations, orders 
and directives for it to require such information.

(3). (4). Please see seniority lists.
16. (l)-(6). Refer to the seniority lists which 

Plaintiffs' already have.
(7) There are no job descriptions for these jobs.

Of course, it is necessary for any person holding a clerical 
job to be able to comprehend, to read and write well, to 
have intelligence, to be industrious, to be reliable, to

2 2 3



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION_____________

FREDDIE EATON, etc., :

Plaintiffs, :
: CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs. :
: 6648-71-P

COURTAULDS NORTH : u. j
AMERICA INC., etc., :

Defendants. :

» wOf:?!

c ,r7:>

HARRY L. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

VLi, f ’

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6768-71-P

A N S W E R

Comes now the defendant Courtaulds North America 

Inc. and, for answer to the complaint as last amended 

herein, interposes the following defenses, separately 

and severally:

FIRST DEFENSE

I. It denies that this court has jurisdiction 

as is alleged in this paragraph and denies that this 

is a suit in equity.

II. It admits that the named plaintiffs seek to 

bring this action on their own behalf, but denies that 

plaintiffs have any standing to represent the alleged 

members of the class, denies that a class action may 

be maintained as to each item of damages sought, in­

cluding, but not being limited to, back pay, and denies 

that the plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the alleged class.

3 Ob'



- 2 -

III. It denies each allegation of this 

paragraph.

IV. It admits that the named plaintiffs, at 

the time of the filing of said complaint, were 

Negro citizens of the United States, residing in 

Mobile, Alabama, who were employed at Courtaulds 

at its LeMoyne plant.

V. Defendant admits that it is a corporation 

licensed to do business in the State of Alabama, in 

the County of Mobile and in other states and that it 

manufactures nylon. It is engaged in interstate 

commerce and does employ more than twenty-five persons.

The remaining portion of this paragraph is not directed 

to this defendant and hence requires no answer by it.

VI. This defendant admits that it has entered 

into various collective bargaining agreements with the 

other designated defendants, but denies the remaining 

averments of this paragraph and further alleges that 

this court has no jurisdiction of charges of unfair 

labor practices.

VII. The averments of this paragraph are denied.

VIII. The averments of this paragraph are denied.

IX. Defendant denies that the "plaintiff" has 

proper standing to represent any alleged class and 

denies that such plaintiff, whoever he may be, is qualified 
as is alleged.

31? 9



-5-

■)

FIFTH DEFENSE

The claim of the plaintiff, Harry L. Austin, to the 

extent that it seeks to recover for an alleged discrimin­

atory discharge, is barred by the arbitration award of 

Carl A. Warns, Jr., Arbitrator, rendered by him on May 

31, 1972, following the filing of the grievance by said 

Harry L. Austin and following contract grievance proce­

dures, including a two-day arbitration hearing, in which 

award the Arbitrator ordered said plaintiff reinstated, 

but without any back pay, and stated this:

"I find no evidence of racial 
discrimination in this case."

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing answer has been served upon each of the attorneys 

of record in the above cause, by depositing a copy of same 

in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to

each of said lawyers at their respective business addresses
"tfcon this, the /X day of October, 1972.

PAUL W. BROCK, Trial Attorney 
for Defendant COURTAULDS

OF COUNSEL:
HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PAUL W. BROCK

312 /'/STu



)J

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

_____________SOUTHERN DIVISION______

FREDDIE EATON, etc., 

Pla intiffs,

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into by and between the 

plaintiffs, Freddie Eaton, Alphonse Creagh, Warren Eaton, 

Levon Thornton, Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, Lawson 

Harvey, Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sims, Herman Blackman, 

Earl Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin, Roosevelt Hurd and Harry 

Austin, and the defendants, Courtaulds North America Inc., 

Textile Workers Union of America and Local 1465, Textile 

Workers Union of America, each acting by his counsel, and 

is subject to approval by the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern 

Division, at Mobile, Alabama, following such notice and 

hearing as that Court may, by Order, direct.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6648-71-P
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOU. DISC. ALA.
FILED IM CLERK’S OrUCE

DEC 4 1972

WILLIAM J. O'COMMOR
CLERIC

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6768-71-P

313 /'/&ct



-2-

This Agreement will be forthwith submitted to the 

Court and the Court will be requested by the parties here­

to to approve it and to grant the Joint Motion attached 

hereto at Exhibit "A", and, following the giving of notice 

and the hearing of any objections, to enter a final order.

This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of 

compromising, settling and terminating this burdensome 

and time-consuming litigation, without admission of fault 

or liability by defendants, which they have denied and 

continue to deny. The premises considered, and subject 

to said Court approval, the parties agree as follows:

I.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY

Courtaulds will continue to provide equal employment 

opportunity in all areas of its employment practices, 

including but not necessarily limited to, recruitment 

(permanent and temporary), promotions, demotions and all 

other terms and conditions-_of employment, without regard
to race-nr rnlnr.

o 1 •;* ' 77*/ O '
issmsssgESzr'



\

II.

UNION REPRESENTATION POLICY

The Unions will continue to implement their policy 

of fairly and adequately representing all employees 

within the bargaining unit without regard to their race 

or color.

-3-

III.

FUTURE PROGRESSION

(A) The working force of Mobile and Washington Counties, 

Alabama, from which Courtaulds draws almost all of its 

employees, is presently comprised of approximately 28.39% 

minorities, of which minorities the majority are blacks.

Based upon this composition, the goal of Courtaulds at this 

time is to employ in bargaining unit positions a number of 

black employees equal to between 23% and 28%, of all of its 

bargaining unit employees. However, this is a temporary goal, 

because it is recognized that the racial composition of the 

working force from which Courtaulds draws its employees may 

well change from time to time. Accordingly, the over-all 

goal of Courtaulds will be to employ in bargaining unit 

positions that number of black employees in approximately 

the same ratio to all employees in the bargaining unit as 

the number of blacks in the total working force of Mobile 

and Washington Counties bears to the total working force 

of said counties during the next four years. It is recognized 

that said ratio will change from time to time as the racial

115 /7f*.

'HBSBBHHBSS”



- 4 -

cotnposition of said total working force changes.
(B) As a step in the accomplishment of this goal, the 

next five vacancies in the Courtaulds Apprentice Program 
will be filled with blacks, and thereafter Courtaulds will 
make every reasonable effort to fill two out of five 
vacancies in its Apprentice Program with qualified blacks 
until its goal is met for the Apprentice Program. The goal 
will be met and maintained by Courtaulds as to employment 
in its craft classifications primarily through the use of 
the Apprentice Program. However, fair consideration will
be given to applications for craft classifications by present 
employees who submit satisfactory evidence of their qualifi­
cations .

(C) As to supervisory and other staff positions, 
vacancies occur relatively seldom, but Courtaulds, during 
the next four years, will make every reasonable effort to 
fill two out of five staff vacancies other than supervisory 
and one out of five supervisory vacancies with qualified 
black employees until the percentage of blacks approximates 
10% in the supervisory positions and until the percentage 
of blacks in staff positions other than supervisory is 
approximately the same as the percentage of blacks in bargaining 
unit positions may be from time to time, all as is more fully 
set forth in Paragraph (A) above.

j

W B



- 5 -

(D) Other than as to the next five vacancies in the 
Apprentice Program, Courtaulds' compliance with its goals 
will be measured on an over-all, flexible basis, and it 
is not intended that Courtaulds must fill any vacancies 
with blacks in strict progression.

(E) Within thirty days after this Agreement is finally 
approved by the Court, Courtaulds will make available to 
Lamar Hill the opportunity to transfer into the classifi­
cation of Industrial Vehicle Mechanic; to Levon Thornton 

the opportunity to transfer into the classification of 
Millwright, and to Learthur Dawkins, the opportunity to 
transfer into the classification of Sheet Metal Mechanic.
If any of the foregoing employees accepts the transfers 
offered him, the terms of the collective bargaining agree­
ment will govern his rights to and in such classification.
He will begin at the starting wage rate and will have the 
opportunity to progress to the higher rates provided for 
his respective classification in the current collective 
bargaining agreement. However, notwithstanding anything
to the contrary (and particular reference is directed to 
the paragraph entitled "Court Seniority"), the seniority 
of each such transferring employee shall be governed entirely 
by the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement, 
except that, in the event of future reductions in force, he will 
be given the opportunity to return temporarily to the respective

317
/fdA,



r

- 6-

section or classification in which he is employed on the 
date this agreement is finally approved by the Court, pro­
vided such section or classification seniority (frozen as 
of the date he transferred) permits him to do so, and he 
will earn the then appropriate rate for that job or 
classification.

(F) Courtaulds will make available to John Woodyard;
Rane Stone; Richard H. Jones, Jr.; James Lofton; A. L.
Crenshaw; Phillip Yelder; A. G. Dean; Willie Partee; Loni 
Bush and Learthur Dawkins, who are members of the Affected 
Class still in the Sundry Operators' jobs or in the Labor 
Section, the special opportunity to advance into an entry 
level job in either the Viscose or Spinning Section of the 
Rayon Plant, and said special opportunity will remain open 
for thirty days from the date of tender and will be accepted 
or irretrievably lost at the end of the thirty day period.
Any of said named employees timely accepting the tendered 
opportunity to advance into said entry level job shall there­
after have Court Seniority for purposes of promotion, demotion, 
layoff and recall in accordance with Paragraphs VII, C. and 
D.(l) hereof, respectively.

IV
RECRUITMENT

In order to insure that Courtaulds' policy of non­
discrimination is communicated to minority groups and 
individuals, the Company will undertake the following:

/ < f / ^



- 7 -

(A) It will notify the principals or employment 

counselors in the high schools, vocational and techni­

cal schools, junior colleges and colleges located in the 

Mobile area that the Company maintains a non-discriminatory 

employment policy and that all applicants for employment 

will be considered without regard to race or color.

(B) It will contact those agencies in the Mobile 

area which are potential sources of minority job applicants 

and will continue active and regular communications with 

them in order to procure a source of qualified black 

applicants for employment. If these communications fail

to develop a reasonable number of applicants after the 

first contact or if a reasonable number of applicants 

is not continuously supplied through such communications 

for job opportunities, the Company may elect to continue 

communications with particular agencies only or to sub­

stitute other agencies and/or to engage in a regular program 

of advertising in newspapers or other media having general 

circulation in the black community of Mobile.

(C) Most communications with such agencies and most 

such media advertising will be designed to inform members 

of the black community and to notify potential black 

applicants in timely fashion that job opportunities are 

or shortly will become available, when such is the case, 

so that they can make applications for such openings.

3 1 9



\

(D) It will consider applications of black college 
graduates for salaried positions.

(E) It will encourage the assistance of incumbent 
black employees in recruiting qualified black applicants.

(F) It is the intent of this Agreement to permit 
flexibility in the Company's efforts to notify the black 
community of job opportunities, and the Company is not 
required to use newspaper or other media advertising un­
less such advertising is necessary to accomplish the broad 
objective of giving notice to the black community of job 

opportunities.
(G) It will endeavor to assist and encourage its black 

employees to participate in remedial education, adult educa­
tion and vocational education programs in order to give them 
the opportunity to increase their basic education so that 
they can qualify for higher-rated jobs and for supervisory 
and technical positions with the Company.

V.
BACK PAY

Courtaulds will pay to the named plaintiffs and to the 
plaintiff class $75,000.00 as back pay to be apportioned among 

all named plaintiffs and all qualifying members of the class. 
Within ten days following final approval of the Settlement 
Agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys will prepare and present to 
this Court a proposed method by which the amount of back pay 
is to be computed for each recipient, together with a

- 8 -

/ J 3 ^



-9-

suggested form of notice to the qualifying members of the class 
of said proposed method of computation. Counsel for defendants 
shall have seven days thereafter to file counter proposals, if 
any.

VI.

ATTORNEYS' f e e s , costs and expenses

Courtaulds and the international Textile Workers Union of 

America, AFL-CIO-CLC, will pay the total amount of $20,000.00 

to Vernon Z. Crawford and James U. Blacksher, 1407 Davis 

Avenue, Mobile, Alabama, and to Jack Greenberg and William L. 

Robinson, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, as a reason­

able attorneys' fee for all services rendered by them through 

the entry of the Court's Order approving this settlement and 

for any incidental and insubstantial services they may hence­

forth render, including, but not being limited to, monitoring 

implementation of this agreement. Courtaulds will also pay 

said attorneys $1,317.70 for their expenses incurred in 

connection with this suit; and Courtaulds will pay the costs

of this action.



"\

VII.

COURT SENIORITY

A. The Affected Class will consist of those black 

employess hired into the Labor Section prior to October 

21, 1968, and who are named on the attached Exhibit One.

B. For the period of its duration and solely for 

its application as hereafter set forth, Court Seniority 

shall be seniority in addition to that existing under 

the current Collective Bargaining Agreement of October 

26, 1970, or any subsequent collective bargaining agree­

ment, shall apply only for the purpose set forth in this 

article, and shall be defined as length of continuous 

service with Courtaulds. Continuous service shall be 

deemed to be or to have been broken by any event so de­

scribed in Article XI, Section "C", page 19, of said 

October 26, 1970 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

C. 1. When members of the Affected Class compete 

with each other or with employees not of the Affected Class 

as to any permanent or temporary promotion, Court Seniority 

shall be the applicable seniority for such purpose and may 

be utilized by Affected Class employees and by any other 

employees so competing subject to the remaining provisions 

of this paragraph. A member of the Affected Class shall

- 1 0 -

3
/ & £ L



- 11-

{

i

i

i(
i
i
)

iiij
I

lose his Court Seniority for promotion purposes when he 
ceases to be an employee for any reason or when he has 
failed to bid a total of three times for the next or any 
other higher job in his line of progression to which he would 
be entitled by virtue of his Court Seniority; and, in addi­
tion, if he is in a Sundry Operator's job or Labor Section 
job at the time of this agreement, when and if he once 
fails to accept an entry level job in either the Viscose 
or Spinning Section of the Rayon Plant within thirty days 
after such position has been offered to him.

2. An Affected Class member must bid on all 
vacancies above him in his line of progression to which 
he would be entitled by virtue of his Court Seniority or 
waive a bid. If awarded the job, he must take it or waive 
a bid. When all members of the Affected Class lose their 
Court Seniority for promotion purposes, no employees of 
Courtaulds shall thereafter have Court Seniority for pro­
motion purposes.

D. 1. When members of the Affected Class compete 
with each other or with employees not of the Affected 
Class as to layoff, demotion and recall, Court Seniority 
shall be the applicable seniority for such purposes and 
may be utilized by Affected Class employees and any other 
employees so competing. Court Seniority for the purposes 
of demotion, layoff and recall shall not be lost by failure 
either to bid or to accept an entry level job as is set 
forth in preceding Paragraph "c".



-12-

2. Subject to the express exception in Paragraph
III.(F) above, an Affected Class employee or any other 
person can only use his Court Seniority in case of demotion, 
layoff or recall from his position in the line of progression 
in which he is as of the date of this Settlement Agreement 
downward to the entry job in that same line of progression.
He can at no time use Court Seniority to jump from section 
to section or from department to department.

E. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the 
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 
October 26, 1970, for as long as it is in force, and there­
after, the provisions of any future collective bargaining 
agreement which may be in force from time to time, shall 
apply and prevail in all instances unless expressly modi­
fied by this Settlement Agreement.

The parties are not in agreement about the validity 
of the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test - Form CC and 
high school completion or equivalent requirement as a 
reliable predictor of performance in craft jobs at Courtaulds' 
LeMoyne site. However, it is agreed that Courtaulds may 
continue said educational requirement and to administer said

VIII.

APPRENTICE PROGRAM



- 1 3 -

Bennett test and to utilize the scores achieved thereon in 
selecting craft apprentices only, retaining the present 
passing score of 35. But Courtaulds agrees that it will 
nonetheless achieve its percentage goal of black employment 
in the apprentice positions regardless of whether any 
particular applicant achieves the passing test score or 
meets the high school completion or equivalent requirement. 
Courtaulds will substantially fill such apprentice positions 
from within the plant whenever qualified applicants are 
therein available. The Bennett test score and educational 
requirement will be only two of the factors utilized by 
Courtaulds in selecting apprentices. Other factors will 
include the applicant's training, experience and demonstrated 
ability.

Courtaulds further agrees that it will begin a continuing 
review of its testing program, in consultation with Psychological 
Corporation and/or other industrial testing authorities to 
be selected by Courtaulds, in order to determine the suit­
ability of said Bennett test with respect to its use in the 
Apprentice Program. Courtaulds will consider, among other 
factors, its racially discriminatory impact, if any, and will 
consider, in good faith, making appropriate changes in its 
testing program if the need for such changes is indicated.

3 2 3
/cfT^



SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Any dispute or disagreement arising under this 

Settlement Agreement involving matters governed by the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement as it may be modified

by this Settlement Agreement shall be referred forj
resolution to the grievance process provided by the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at the time1
in question. Provided, however, nothing herein shall 

be interpreted as enlarging or expanding the legal or 

contractual obligations of the unions to process 

grievances.

X.

!t
REPORTS

On May 1, 1973 and November 1, 1973, and on November 

1 of each following year while the Court retains juris­

diction, Courtaulds will file with the Court (and copies 

will be served upon counsel for plaintiffs and defendant

Unions) the following information with respect to:j

i

BHKBHHESEr?''"''



- 1 5 -

A . New Applicants for Employment

1. Number of applicants, by race, during the 

reporting period; and

2. Number of hires, by race, and jobs hired

into.

B . Employees in the Affected Class

1. The name of each employee in the Affected 

Class who filed a bid for any job vacancy during the re­

porting period;

2. The name of each employee in competition 

with an Affected Class member who attained promotion or 

transfer to a new job and the job obtained;

3. The name of each Affected Class member 

who was an unsuccessful bidder for a job vacancy and the 

reason the affected trass memDer was unsuccessrui;

4. If a member of the Affected Class was de­

moted, laid-off or terminated, the reasons for the 

demotion, lay-off or termination;

5. The name of each Affected Class employee 

who lost his Court Seniority for promotion purposes.

C. Applicants for Apprentice Program

1. The name, race, educational level and test 

score of each applicant and an indication of whether the 

applicant was hired.

2. A concise description of any changes which 

the company may make in its testing program and an indi­

cation of whether such change was made as a result of

O ■'l H I



-16-

~\

consultation with the Psychological Corporation or other 

industrial testing authority.

D . Recruitment Efforts

1. A list of the schools and other agencies 

contacted and notified of Courtaulds1 non-discriminatory 

employment policy.

2. A copy of any newspaper or other media 

advertisements seeking applicants for employment.

XI.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of this action for such other and further 

orders as may be appropriate consistent with this Order and 

Agreement is hereby retained until November 1, 1976, at 

which time said jurisdiction shall terminate and this cause 

shall be dismissed.

XII.

OTHER
This Agreement resolves all issues raised by the alle­

gations in the complaints in these actions.and-which might 

have been raised thereunder and disposes of all alleged acts 

of discrimination against the plaintiffs and their class by the

328



-17-

defendants or any of them under said Title VII, under Section 

1981, and under 29 U.S.C. Section 15.1. et seq..prjior to the date 

of this Order, and upon compliance with this Order, the plain­

tiffs waive any complaint that defendants are not in compliance 

with Title VII and with said Section 1981 and said Section 151.

PAUL W. BROCK, Attorney for 
defendant Courtaulds

OF COUNSEL:
HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

L . 'Jl  l&tdL.U. “BLACKSHER, Attorney for 
plaintiffs and plaintiff class

OF COUNSEL:
CRAWFORD AND BLACKSHER 
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

BENJAMIN L. ERDREICH, Attorr^j 
for defendant Textile Workert 
of America

OF COUNSEL:
CRAWFORD, MITCH & COOPER 
1025 Bank for Savings Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Q
J V & L



-18-

OTTO E. SIMON, Attorney for 
defendant Textile Workers 
Union Local Number 1465

OF COUNSEL:

SIMON AND WOOD 
Suite 1010
Van Antwerp Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

193^
330



EXHIBIT ONE

i

AFFECTED CLASS MEMBERS

1. Robert Henderson 23. William Warren

2. Lonnie Eaton 24. Tillman Thicklin

3. John Woodyard 25. John Peoples

4. Rane Stone 26. Elmore Gamble

5. Richard H. Jones, Jr. 27. Isiah Dinkins, Jr

6. Janies Lofton 28. Earl Eaton

7. George Burton, Jr. 29. Hermon Blackmon

8. Willie Burrell 30. George Peters

9. Joe Lee Turner 31. Roosevelt Hurd

10. A. L. Crenshaw 32. Lonzi Greene

11. Ehillip Yelder 33. James West

12. A. G. Dean 34. Dudley Walker
T O T.T A r\ T5 +~ 35« 17 T rr*m Don t  n 1

14. Loni Bush 36. Lamar Hill

15. Preston Dawkins 37. Freddie Eaton

16. Elijah Kelly 38. James L. Evans

17. Charlie Brewer, Jr. 39. Levi Eaton

h-* CO William Goodwin 40. Willie Sullivan

19. Frank Stone 41. Samuel Lockhart

20. Stone Hurd 42. Milton Jones

i—1CN] Charlie Gray 43. Samuel Stallworth

22. Willie A. Stallworth 44. Warren Eaton

331
/9 eA u



45. Leroy Sims

46. Levon Thornton

47. Alphonse Creagh

48. David McAuthor

49. Milton J. Wicks

50. Thomas Hayes

51. Aaron Eaton

52. Frank Stutts

53. Learthur Dawkins

54. Albert Dees

55. Coleman Eaton

56. Joseph Eaton

57. Martin Evans

---3



■J

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

_____________SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, etc.,

Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs .

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

6648-71-P
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOU. DIST. ALA. 
FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

DEC 4  1972

HARRY L. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v s .
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

WILLIAM J. O ’CONNORC L E F . ; :

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

6768-71-P , f c U

JOINT MOTION TO AMEND CLASS DEFINITION. 
TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT. AND TO AUTHORIZE 

NOTICE TO CLASS

All the parties herein jointly move the court:

1. To amend the definition of the plaintiff class 

so that the class of plaintiffs (a) for purposes of in­

junctive relief will consist of all present and future 

Negro employees of Courtaulds North America Inc. (called 

Courtaulds) at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site, and (b) for 

purposes of back pay, of all present Negro employees of 

Courtaulds at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site.

/9 6 a ,340



- 2-

2. To consider the Settlement Agreement attached 

hereto and to approve its provisions preliminarily, 

pending a hearing on any objections which may be filed 

thereto by members of the plaintiff class;

3. To approve and authorize plaintiffs to mail to 

each member of the plaintiff class presently employed by 

Courtaulds the proposed Notice to Class attached hereto;

4. To set a date for a hearing by the court of all 

objections to its final approval of said Settlement 

Agreement, and, following such hearing, to enter an order 

finally approving and directing the implementation of the 

same.

.7
x n u t i  n  • u u u o i V j  n i . c u i . u w j r

for defendant Courtaulds

OF COUNSEL:
HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

■ 3 . J  ;  ' ■ /.-/ f ' r ' a

J/U. BLACKSHER, Attorney 
for plaintiffs and plaintiff 
class

OF COUNSEL:

CRAWFORD AND BLACKSHER 
1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

341



-3-

BENJAMIN L. ERDREICH, Attorney 
for Textile Workers Union 
America

OF COUNSEL:

COOPER, MITCH & CRAWFORD 
1025 Bank for Savings Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

OTTO E. SIMON, Attorney for 
Textile Workers Union Local 
Number 1465

OF COUNSEL:

SIMON AND WOOD
i m n  T7 a _  t > , ,  ,• t  ^  ~  ~

Mobile, Alabama 36602

342
c



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

_____________ SOUTHERN DIVISION______________

FREDDIE EATON, etc., :

Plaintiffs, :
: CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs. :
6648-71-P

COURTAULDS NORTH :
AMERICA INC., etc., :

Defendants. :

HARRY L. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6768-71-P

FIRST ORDER

This cause came on to be heard upon the Joint Motion 

of the parties herein to amend the definition of the plain­

tiff class, to approve preliminarily the Settlement Agreement 

attached to the motion, to approve and authorize mailing of 

the Notice to Class attached to the motion, and to set a 

date for hearing objections to final approval by the Court 

of said Settlement Agreement. The Court has considered the 

motion and the attached proposed Settlement Agreement, the 

Notice to Class, and the record herein, and has heard the 

arguments of counsel, and is of the opinion that the 

Joint Motion is due to be granted.

348



- 2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 

that the court's order of August 14, 1972, be, and the 

same hereby is, amended so that the plaintiff class 

for the consolidated actions shall now be defined, (a) 

for purposes of injunctive relief, as all present and 

future Negro employees of Courtaulds North America Inc. 

at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site, and (b) for purposes of 

back pay, as all present Negro employees of Courtaulds 

North America Inc. at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site.

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

the Settlement Agreement attached to the Joint Motion

be, and the same hereby is, approved preliminarily,

pending a hearing on any objections which may be filed

thereto by members of the plaintiff class, which hearing

is hereby set for .£■•-<- < //./'/Z&t V-
V  /

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 

the Notice to Class attached to the Joint Motion be, and 

the same hereby is, approved, and plaintiffs are hereby 

authorized and ordered to mail a copy of said Notice to 

Class to each member of the plaintiff class presently 

employed by Courtaulds North America Inc. at its LeMoyne, 

Alabama, site within five days from the date of this 

Order.

Done this
U. S. DISTRICT COURT 

SOU. DIST. ALA.
RILED AND ENTERED THIS THE
4-'* DAY OF --,
19 MINUTE ENTRY
NO. -..J. uXIQa!____________
WILLIAM J. O’CONNOR, CLERK

'D e p u t y  c l e r k

day of _________ , 1972.

___
UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

349



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

__________ SOUTHERN DIVISION
FREDDIE EATON, etc., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6648-71-P

HARRY L. AUSTIN, :

Plaintiff, :
: CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs. :
6768-71-P

COURTAULDS NORTH ;
AMERICA INC., etc., :

Defendants. :

NOTICE TO CLASS

TO ALL NEGRO EMPLOYEES OF COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA 
INC., LeMOYNE, ALABAMA:

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(d)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of fcdcvtt.1 Procedure, you are hereby notified that 

there are now pending in this Court consolidated civil 

actions against the defendants, Courtaulds North America 

Inc., the Textile Workers Union of America and its Local 

1465, filed by plaintiffs, Freddie Eaton, Alphonse Creagh, 

Warren Eaton, Levon Thornton, Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, 

Lawson Harvey, Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sims, Herman 

Blackmon, Earl Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin, Roosevelt Hurd, 

and Harry L. Austin, individually and on behalf of all

present and future Negro employees of defendant Courtaulds' 
LeMoyne Plant.

350



- 2-

These lawsuits charge the defendants with violating 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

Section 2000-e, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

42 U.S.C., Section 1981, and also 29 U.S.C. Section 151, 

by discriminating against Negro employees on account of 

their race in ways that deprive them of equal employment 

opportunities and equal union representation. Specifically, 

the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have practiced 

discrimination in the whole range of their employment 

practices, including hiring, initial job assignment, 

promotion and transfer systems, testing and job training 

opportunities. The defendants have denied and do deny 

all such charges of discrimination.

This notice is not to be understood as an expression 

of any opinion by this court as to the merits of any of 

the claims or defenses asserted by either side, but is 

set forth for the sole purpose of informing you of the 

pendency of this litigation so that you may make appro­

priate decisions about what steps you may wish to take 

in relation to these lawsuits.

The parties to this action have all tentatively 

consented to entry of a decree in compromise and settle­

ment of all of the claims made by the plaintiffs and the 

class they represent. A copy of the proposed Settlement 

Agreement as agreed to by all parties to this action is 

attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

Your rights will be affected in these actions, and, 

therefore:

351 C & & L.



-3-

(a) The court will exclude you from the class

represented by the plaintiffs if you request exclusion 

in writing by addressing the Clerk of the United States 

District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Southern 

Division, 213 Federal Building, Mobile, Alabama 36602, 

and postmarked not later than __r J. / ? 7 3

(b) If you do not request exclusion from the class 

pursuant to paragraph (a) above, you will be included in 

such class and any judgment, whether favorable or not, 

including any judgment approving settlement of this 

action, will be binding upon you.

(c) If you do not request exclusion from the class 

but prefer, in connection with your individual claim, to 

be represented by your own attorney rather than by Vernon 

Z. Crawford and James U. Blacksher of Mobile, Alabama, 

and William L. Robinson of New York, New York, attorneys 

for the named plaintiffs herein, you may enter an appear­

ance through your own attorney in writing by addressing 

the Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern 

District of Alabama, Southern Division, 213 Federal 

Building, Mobile, Alabama 36602, and postmarked not later

th



- 4 -

(d) If you do not request exclusion from the class,

then you may file objections to the proposed Settlement 

Agreement agreed upon by all parties to these actions in 

compromise and settlement of this action which is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. If you wish to file objections to 

the attached Settlement Agreement, you may appear person- 

nally or through your attorney at ' S o . on

<. fy //, /^7-I at a hearing before this court, in 

the courtroom of the United States District Court located 

in the Federal Building in Mobile, Alabama. On that date 

the parties to these actions will present the proposed 

Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A to this 

court for final approval.

(e) This notice is being mailed to all persons in 

the plaintiff class. Any person who has not received 

this notice in the mail who believes that he is entitled

to be a member of the class represented by the named plain­

tiffs in these actions and who wants to participate in 

these actions as a member of that class should request in­

clusion in that class in writing by addressing the Clerk 

of the United States District Court, Southern District of 

Alabama, Southern Division, 213 Federal Building, Mobile, 

Alabama 36602, and postmarked not later than 

/ ?~ 7 3 .



J

- 5 -

If you have any questions concerning this notice, 
you may write or call the office of the Clerk of the 
United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Alabama, Southern Division, 213 Federal Building, 
Mobile, Alabama 36602, telephone number (205) 433-3581.

Done this

u n:



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

_____  SOUTHERN DIVISION_____________

FREDDIE EATON, etc., 
Plaintiffs,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
6648-71-P

HARRY L. AUSTIN, :

Plaintiff, :
: CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs. :
: 6768-71-P

COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA :
INC., etc., • :

Defendants. :

O R D E R

The plaintiffs in Civil Action Number 6648-71-P,
• l

Freddie Eaton, Alphonse Creagh, Warren Eato-., Levon 

Thornton, Lamar Hill, Willie Sullivan, Laws . Harvey, 

Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sims, Hermon iaackmon, Earl 

„ae Eaton, Willie Goodwin and Roosevelt Hurd, commenced 

their action as a class action on May lo, 971. The 

complaint alleged that defendants Courtaulds North 

America Inc. (hereinafter called the "Company" or 

"Courtaulds"), the Textile Workers Union of America 

(hereinafter "TWUA") and its Local Union 1465 were en­

gaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination

360



- 2 -

. in employment at the LeMoyne, Alabama, plant of Courtaulds 
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C., Section 2000-e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C., Section 1981, 
and 29 U.3.C., Section 151 et seq. The defendants duly 

answered and denied the material allegations of the complaint 
and filed affirmative defenses.

The plaintiff Harry L. Austin brought Civil Action 
Number 6768-71 on July 9, 1971, as a class action, and 
made allegations generally similar to those in Civil 

Action Number 6648-71. As is subsequently more fully 
described, said actions were consolidated for trial by 
this court.

This court has jurisdiction over the parties and 
the subject matter of these actions.

This order is being issued with the consent of the 
parties and does not constitute any adjudication that 
Courtaulds or the Unions have engaged in any act of racial 
discrimination in violation of said Title VII, of said 
Section 1981, of said Section 151, or of any other laws, 
regulations or otherwise. The defendants have assured 
the court of their intent to continue to comply in all 

respects with said sections as they may apply to defendants, 
respectively, and, in implementation of that assurance, 
have entered into this agreement to demonstrate their good 
faith and to resolve this matter without the burdens of

Q 361



-3-

further litigation. The defendants expressly deny any 

violations of said Title VII, of said Section 1981, or 

of said Section 151 or of any other law, regulation, 

order or directive, and do not, by consenting to the 

entry of this order, admit any liability.

By its order of December 4, 1972____ , the Court

has re-defined the plaintiff class (a) for purposes of 

injunctive relief as all present and future Negro employees 

of- Courtaulds at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site, and (b) for 

purposes of back pay, as all present Negro employees of 

Courtaulds at its LeMoyne, Alabama, site.

And the court having given full consideration to the 

pleadings, briefs, interrogatories and answers thereto, 

depositions, exhibits and other matters of record herein, 

and having conferred at length with the counsel for all 

parties, and having given ample notice to the parties 

and said class, and having heard and considered all 

objections to the Settlement Agreement attached hereto, 

and the court finding that the settlement is reasonable 

and just,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims 

made and issues raised by the allegations in.the complaints 

in these actions and all issues which might have been 

raised thereunder are adjudicated and determined by this

3 6 - '



-4-

Order, which resolves and disposes of all of said 
claims and issues with prejudice, and all claims 
of harassment and discrimination against the named 
plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the 
plaintiff class by the defendants or any of them, 
are, except to the extent that relief is granted 
herein by this Order of Court, forever barred.

It is therefore further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 
and DECREED that said Settlement Agreement is 
hereby fully approved by the Court and that the 
parties shall proceed to implement the same.

The Court expressly notes that the provi­
sions of each agreed settlement are approved as 
reasonable compromises between the parties designed 
to eliminate the effects of any possible past dis­
criminatory practices and in no way is an expression 
by this court of a Constitutional principle which 
requires the hiring of employees on a percentage basis 
reflecting the relative population distribution of 
the races or other ratios or quotas.

Done, this the // day of January, 1973.

SOU. DIST. ALA.
FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE 
l i T- DAY OF JANUARY 1973 

MINUTE ENTRY NO. 327 84 
WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR, CLERK 
BY •> ->.ID — *

Deputy Clerk

Jkr/sc.



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

______________SOUTHERN DIVISION_____________
FREDDIE EATON, etc,, 

Plaintiffs,
vs.

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
6648-71-P

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE

JA N  2 3 1973

WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR
CLERK

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
6788-71-P

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS1 COUNSEL'S 
PROPOSAL FOR DISTRIBUTION OF BACK 

PAY AWARD AND OBJECTION TO 
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S RELEASE FORM

AND
PROPOSAL OF COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC.

FOR DISTRIBUTION OF BACK PAY AWARD AND 
PROPOSAL OF COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC. 

FOR RELEASE FORM

Comes now the defendant in the above cause, COURTAULDS 
NORTH AMERICA INC., called Courtaulds, and objects to the 
proposal filed herein by counsel for the plaintiffs for the 
distribution of the back pay award of $75,000.00 and shows 
unto the court that said proposal is inconsistent and is 
unfair to some one or more of the members of the plaintiff 
class. In lieu of said proposal, Courtaulds proposes to 
the court that said back pay award of $75,000.00 be distri­
buted in accordance with Exhibit "A", attached hereto.

tZ.
382



- 2-

Defendant Courtaulds further objects to the 
release form proposed by counsel for the plaintiffs, 
showing unto the court that the proposed release fails 
to provide for the release of the defendant unions and 
is incomplete. In lieu of said form, Courtaulds pro­
poses that the release form attached hereto as Exhibit 
"B" be adopted.

Courtaulds' respectfully requests the right to 
argue orally in support of its proposal for distri­
bution.

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 
foregoing objection and proposal has been served upon all 
attorneys of record in the above cause, by depositing a 
copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, 
addressed to each of said attorneys at their respective 
offices on this, the 23rd day of January, 1973.

PAUL W. BROCK, Trial 
Attorney for Defendant 
Courtaulds North America Inc.

PAUL W. BROCK
OF COUNSEL:
HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, GREAVES & JOHNSTON 
3000 First National Bank Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PAUL W. BROCK

38 j



January 17, 1973

COURTAULDS ' P R O PO S A L  FO R  DISTRIBUTION OF COURT S E T T L E M E N T  FUNDS
(Black employees on payro ll  as of December 4, 1972, plus Lawson Harve

Year Years  of Tota l Due
Hired Name Serv ice Amount Due F o r  Year
1952 Brewer ,  Charlie 21 $ 1,195.91

Goodwin, W illiam 21 1, 195.91
Stone, Frank L. 21 1, 195.91

$ 3, 587. 73
1953 Gray, Charlie 20 1, 138.96

Heard, Stone 20 1, 138.96
Eaton, Lonnie 20 1, 138.96
Henderson, R. L. 20 1, 138. 96
Crenshaw, A1 H. 20 1, 138. 96
Y e lder ,  Ph ill ip 20 1, 138.96
Dawkins, Preston 20 1, 138. 96
Dees, A lbert 20 1,138. 96
Eaton, Coleman 20 1,138. 96

10, 250. 64
1954 Dinkins, Isiah 19 1,082.01

Peoples, John 19 1, 082.01
Blackmon, Herman 19 1,082. 01
Thicklin, T i l lm an 19 1,082.01
Gamble, E lm ore 19 1, 082.01
Hurd, Roosevelt 19 1, 082. 01
Warren, W ill iam 19 1,082.01
Pete rs ,  George 19 1,082.01
Eaton, Earl 19 1,082.01
Stallworth, W il l ie 19 1,082.01
Woodyard, John 19 1, 082. 01
Dean, A. G. 19 1,082.01

12, 984. 12
1955 West, James 18 1, 025. 06

Daniel, E lm ore 18 1, 025. 06
Greene, Lonzie 18 1, 025. 06
Walker, Dudley 18 1, 025. 06
Lofton, James 18 1, 025. 06
Jones, Richard, Jr. 18 1, 025. 06
Stone, Rane 18 1, 025. 06
Evans, Martin 18 1,025. 06

8, 200. 48
1956 Evans, James L. 17 968. 12

Eaton, Fredd ie 17 968. 12
Partee ,  W il l ie 17 968. 12
Hill,  Lamar 17 968.12

3, 872. 48
1957 Eaton, Joseph 16 1 911.17 911.17

1959 Eaton, L ev i 14 797.27 797.27

1963 Sims, L e ro y 10 569.48
Jones, Milton, Jr. 10 569.48
Sullivan, W il l ie 10 569.48
Eaton, W arren 10 569.48
Stallworth, Samuel 10 569.48
Burton, George 10 569.48
Burrell,  W ill ie 10 569. 48
Bush, Lonie 10 569.48
Lockhart, Samuel 10 569.48
Turner, Joe Lee 10 569.48

5, 694. 80

384 c Z / 2 * ,
EXHIBIT "A"



' j J Page No. 2

Year Yea rs  of Tota l Due
Hired Name Serv ice Amount Due F o r  Year
1964 Kelly , Elijah 9 $ 512.53 $

Thornton, Levon 9 512.53 1,025.06

1965 Creagh, Alphonse 8 455. 58
Wicks, Milton 8 455. 58 •
Me Author, David 8 455.58
Poe, W illiam 8 455. 58
Patrick, Charles 8 455. 58
Mays, Bobby 8 455. 58 2,733.48

1966 Kimbrough, Edna 7 398.64
Greene, Cora 7 398.64
Daniels, Fredd ie 7 398.64
Collins, Shadrach 7 398.64
Doss, Simon 7 398.64 1, 993.20

1967 Colston, John 6 341.69
Hayes, Thomas 6 341.69
Eaton, Aaron 6 341.69
Stutts, Frank 6 341.69
W ill iam s, M ary  J. 6 341.69
Jones, Cora 6 341.69 2,050.14

1968 Chambers, Ollie 5 284. 74
Jones, John H. 5 284.74
Patrick , Charlie 5 284. 74
Rodgers, Robert L. 5 284.74
Walker, Johnnie 5 284. 74
Johnson, Wilson 5 284.74
T a rv e r ,  A lbert 5 284.74
Mullins, Robert (Dec'd) 5 284.74
Dawkins, Learthur 5 284.74
Dubose, W il l ie 5 284.74
James, W il l ie 5 284.74
Jones, Bennie 5 284. 74
Diamond, H. J. 5 284.74
Austin, Harry 5 284.74
Jones, Bobby G. 5 284.74
James, Odell 5 284.74
Jones, Sarah 5 284.74
Will iam s, Josephine 5 284.74
Owens, Minnie L. 5 284.74
Murphy, Barbara 5 284.74
Franklin, Annie M. 5 284.74
Scruggs, Vida 5 284.74
Durggin, Ellen 5 284.74
Greene, John 5 284.74
West, Amanda 5 284.74 7, 118. 50

1969 Glover, Alphonse 4 227.79
Eze ll ,  Roy 4 227.79
Cowan, Edward 4 227.79
Stone, Thomas 4 227.79
Tay lor , Joseph 4 227.79
Will iam s, W il l ie 4 227.79
Pugh, Sidney 4 227.79
Anderson, Dan 4 227.79
Sims, Jerome 4 227.79
H arr is ,  Joseph 4 227.79
Gatson, Robert 4 227.79
Quinney, Norman 4 227.79
W ill iam s, Sarah G. 4 227.79

385



Page No. 3

Year Years  of
H ired Name Service Amount Due
1969 Dumas, Gracie 4 $ 227.79
(Cont'd) Bush, Annie I. 4 227.79

Hill, Mable 4 227.79
Lafiette , L a r ry 4 227.79

1970 Chaney, Melvin 3 170.84
Blake, John A. 3 170.84
Harr is ,  Theodore 3 170. 84
Scott, Joseph 3 170.84
Bolden, F reem an 3 170.84
Rhodes, Ortis 3 170. 84
Howze, Isiah 3 170.84
Dawson, Devain 3 170. 84
Cowan, A lex 3 170. 84
Moore, L ee  B. 3 170.84
Curtis, Lonnie 3 170.84
Flott, L a r r y 3 170.84
King, John 3 170.84
Cunningham, W il l ie 3 170.84
Sims, Charles 3 170.84
Davis, Delroy 3 170.84
Black, Helen 3 170.84
James, C a rr ie 3 170. 84
Robinson, Deloris 3 170.84
Caster, Francine 3 170.84
Watkins, Elijah 3 170.84
Joiner, Horace 3 170.84
Moore, Jacob 3 170.84
Smith, Richard 3 170.84
Smiley, Ernest L. 3 170.84

1971 Gamble, G regory 2 113.90
Flott, Leo 2 113.90
Johnson, Charles 2 113.90
Bush, Earnest A. 2 113.90
Goodwin, Carl 2 113.90
Hunt, L a r r y 2 113.90
Feagin, Edward E. 2 113.90
Davis, David 2 113. 90
Heard, Ronald 2 113.90
Pugh, Harry 2 113.90
McKinney, George 2 113.90
Adams, Horace 2 113.90
Davis, Nathaniel 2 113.90
Martin, Johnnie 2 113.90
Jenkins, Benn 2 113.90
Henderson, Cherry 2 113.90
Brackett, Doretha 2 113.90
Kirksey, M arg ie 2 113.90
Dees, V e rde l l 2 113.90
Penn, George 2 113.90
Stephens, Charles 2 113. 90

1972 Reed, James L. 1 56. 95
Brown, K. E. 1 56. 95
Mencey, W. O. 1 56. 95
Burke, D. E. 1 56. 95
Chestang, C. D. 1 56. 95
Thicklin, Charlie 1 56. 95
Ward, A. J. 1 56. 95
Flott, W il l ie 1 56. 95

3 6 6

Total Due 
For  Year  
$

3,872.42

4, 271.00

2, 391.90



Page No. 4

Year Years  of
Hired Name Serv ice Amount Due
1972 Evans, A lv in  J. 1 $ 56.95
(Cont'd) L itt le ,  E ll is 1 56.95

M cC ree ,  Ronald O. 1 56. 95
W ill iam s, John 1 56.95
Sullivan, W illiam E. 1 56.95
Smith, Joe Wade 1 56.95
Callaway, Henry 1 56.95
Stephens, Tom m y 1 56. 95
Bell, J. C. 1 56.95
Catlin, W ill iam  L . 1 56.95
Winbush, L .  K. 1 56.95
Tay lo r ,  C. P. 1 56. 95
Turner, L .  E. 1 56.95
Dean, Roosevelt 1 56.95
Stone, Frank, Jr. 1 56.95
Glover, David, Jr. 1 56.95
Wright, H. E. 1 56.95
Pritchett, R. L . 1 56.95
Burke, A rs ie 1 56.95
Wiggins, LaVaughn 1 56.95
Martin, Frank L. 1 56.95
Camble, D. O. 1 56. 95
Clark, Bennie 1 56. 95
Anderson, W. M. 1 56.95
M ills ,  Samuel 1 56. 95
W ill iam s, Arthur 1 56.95
Flott, L a r r y 1 56.95
Barney, Mamie 1 56.95
Sullivan, Sadie 1 56.95
Pugh, Phyllis 1 56.95
Adams, Angie M. . 1 56.95
Clark, B i l ly  Roy 1 56. 95
Perk ins, George E. 1 56. 95
Patr ick , Minnie L. 1 56. 95
Camble, Delois 1 56. 95
Eze ll ,  Betty 1 56.95
Thomas, A. L. 1 56. 95
Jones, Eddie 1 56.95
Collins, Gladys 1 56. 95
Hamilton, Alberta 1 56.95
Roberson, Julius 1 56.95
W ill iam s, Barbara 1 56. 95

Lawson Harvey (H ired in 1965 and
resigned in 1971) ____28.___

1, 317
398.11

Distribution calculated as fo llows:

$75,000 -j— 1317 ( y r s . s e rv ic e )  = $56.948/yr. se rv ice

Tota l Due 
For  Year  
$

2, 847.50

398, 11 
$ 75, 000. 00

387



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

______________SOUTHERN DIVISION ____

FREDDIE EATON, etc., 
Plaintiffs,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
6648-71-P

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
6788-71-P

R E L E A S E

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, _______________________________ ____________ ,

herein called Employee, for and in consideration of the
sum of $_________________ received from Courtaulds North

America Inc., hereinafter called Company, the receipt 
of which is hereby acknowledged,

HEREBY release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge 

all defendants in the above two Civil Actions, being 

Civil Action Number 6648-71-P and Civil Action Number 

6788-71-P, respectively, of and from all actions, causes 

of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts,

EXHIBIT "B"
368



- 2-

contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, damages, 

judgments, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in 

equity, made by me or on my behalf or which could have 

been made by me or on my behalf in either or both of 

the above two actions, including, but not being limited 

to, those arising from or in any way connected with 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 

§2000-e, et seq.; 42 USC §1981 and 29 USC §151, et seq., 

and otherwise, which Employee now has, has had in the 

past, or may have at any time, connected with or arising 

from any occurrence, matter or thing occurring at any 

time prior to the date of the execution of this release.

This release will be binding upon the heirs and 
personal representatives of Employee and will inure to 
the benefit of Company and of the defendant unions and 
to the successors and assigns of Company and defendant 
unions.

Employee acknowledges that he has read and under­

stands this release; that he has conferred with one of 

his attorneys at law, J. U. Blacksher, Esq., 1407 Davis 

Avenue, in Mobile, Alabama, telephone 432-1691, or has 

the right to do so prior to signing this release in 

order to have the same further explained to him. Employee 

further acknowledges that he has executed this release 

as his own free act and deed in the presence of the 

undersigned witnesses.

389



• • o  o
i

-3-
J11i
i

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee has set his hand and 
seal on this, the ________  day of ______________ , 1973.

i Employee
[SEAL]

Signed and sealed in the presence of the following 

witnesses:

NAME ADDRESS

NAME ADDRESS

390



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, ST AL, I
Plaintiffs

vs l CIVIL ACTION NO. 6648-71-P
COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA,
ET AL,

t
Defendants

HARRY AUSTIN, ETC.,
Plaintiffs

i
vs CIVIL ACTION NO. 6768-71-P

COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA,
ET AL, i

Defendants

ORDER
This matter comas on before the Court on the objection 

Of defendant COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. to the plain­
tiffs* proposal for distribution of back f̂ ay award and proposed 
release form and the proposal of defendant COURTAULDS for back 
pay award and suggested release form.

The Court having considered the matter and oral argument 

of counsel and being fully advised, it is
ORDERED that the objection of defendant COURTAULDS 

OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. to the proposed method of distributing 
back pay to the plaintiff class members as filed by the 
plaintiffs on the 18th day of January 1973, be and the said 
objection is hereby SUSTAINED as to paragraph numbered 2,

* 406 t



-s

and is OVERRULED as to paragraph* numbered 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7 and 8.
It is further ORDERED that the objection of defendant 

COURTAULDS to the release form proposed by plaintiffs, which
objection is joined in by defendant, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION 
LOCAL HO. 1465, be and the same is hereby SUSTAINED. The 
Court hereby adopts the release form attached to defendant 
COURTAULDS* 6bjactions and identified as Exhibit B.

D0H3 at Mobile, Alabama, this of May, 1973.

UNITKp’ STATES' DISTRICT JUDGE

U. 3. DIST. COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.
PILED AND ENTERED THI3 THE 

DAY OP MAr- 1973
MINUTE ENTRY NO. 
WTT.T.TAM J. O'CONNER,
BY -~k2zrv.c^

CLERK
Deputy Clerk

J. S. DISTRICT COUK 
SOU. DIST. ALA. 

LSD IN CLERK’S OFF1C

JUN 181973

VILLI AM J. O'CONNO 
CLERI.

J 407



.....

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, ET AL., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)

V. ) CIVIL ACTION
)

COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA, ) No. 6648-71-P
ET AL., J

Defendants. )

HARRY AUSTIN, ETC.,
Plaintiffs,

V.
COURTAULDS OF NORTH AMERICA , 
ET AL.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)) CIVIL ACTION
)) No. 6768-71-P
)
)
)

ORDER ON METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING BACK 
PAY TO PLAINTIFF CLASS MEMBERS

Pursuant to the settlement agreement adopted 
by Order of this court on January 11, 1973, the fol­
lowing method of distributing back pay to the plaintiff 
class is adopted:

1. All members of the plaintiff class shall 
receive at least a nominal share of the total back pay 
award of $75,000.00. In addition, those class members 
eligible to receive more than a nominal share shall 
consist of all black persons in the Affected Class, 
whose names appear in Exhibit One of the settlement 
agreement.



2. The method for determining the individual
share for each member of the Affected Class, referred 
to in Paragraph 1 above, is:

(A) Compute the total number of months 
worked by each Affected Class member from the date
of initial employment to December 4, 1972, or until 
the month in which such class member achieved his 
rightful place in a heretofore white line of pro­
gression, whichever date is earlier.

(B) The total sum of the months of the 
Affected Class members is then to be divided into 
the sum of $67,500.00. (The sum of $67,500.00 
represents the $75,000.00 back pay agreement less 
the amounts set out in Paragraph 3 below.)

(C) The gross amount to be received by 
each class member is determined by multiplying the 
results in 2(B) times the number of months worked
by each class member.

3. The nominal share proposed to be re­
ceived by each remaining member of the plaintiff 
class, including Lawson Harvey, is $50.00.

4. The company will compute the net amount 
each plaintiff class member is to receive after the 
appropriate deductions have been made.

5. After the gross and net amounts have 
been determined, counsel for the plaintiffs will 
mail or hand deliver to each member of the plaintiff 
class a copy of the Notice of Compromise and Settle­
ment of Back Pay Claims.

-2-



6. After the above notice has been mailed 
or hand delivered to all plaintiff class members, the
court will hold a hearing on the suitability of the 
proposed distribution of the back pay awards and, if 
satisfied, enter an order approving the distribution.

7. If the distribution is approved by the
court, the company will draw checks in the net amount 
determined to be due according to the above method 
of distribution and will distribute the checks to 
the class members upon the execution of the appro­
priate release form by each class member.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.
FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE 

/ S ’-* DAY OF JUNE 1973 
MINUTE ENTRY NO. U "  p 'j 
WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR, CLERK 
BY —

Deputy Clerk

Done , 1973.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-

4] 7



AFFECTED CLASS MEMBERS STILL EMPLOYED AS OF 
DECEMBER 4, 1972

NAME
MONTHS SERVED OUT 
OF RIGHTFUL PLACE

AWARD
(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS

NET AMOUNT 
(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

Robert Henderson 220 $1,591.11 $451.08 $1,140.03

Lonnie Eaton 210 1,518.78 430.58 1,088.20
John Woodyard 177 1,280.12 356.51 923.61
Rane Stone 168 1,215.03 338.39 876.64
Richard H. Jones, Jr. 158 1.142.71 318.24 824.47
James Lofton 156 1,128.25 314.22 814.03
George Burton, Jr. 93 672.60 185.64 486.96
Willie Burrell 88 636.44 175.66 460.78
Joe Lee Turner 88 636.44 175.66 460.78
A. L. Crenshaw 188 1,359.68 378.67 981.01
Phillip Yelder 187 1,352.45 376.66 975.79
A. G. Dean 173 1,251.20 348.46 902.74
Willie Partee 153 1.106.55 308.17 798.38
Lonie Bush 158 1,142.71 318.24 824.47
Preston Dawkins 204 1,475.40 410.90 1,064.50



NAME
MONTHS SERVED OUT 
OF RIGHTFUL PLACE

Elijah Kelly 106
Charlie Brewer, Jr. 242
William Goodwin 224
Frank Stone, Sr. 219
Stone Hurd 237
Charlie Gray 236
Willie A. Stallworth 225
William Warren 225
Tillman Thicklin 225
John Peoples 224
Elmore Gamble 223
Isiah Dinkins, Jr. 221
Earl Eaton 220
Hermon Blackmon 219
George Peters 217
Roosevelt Hurd 217
Lonzie Greene 203
James West 203

AWARD
(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS

NET AMOUNT 
(AFTER DEDUCTIONS) « n -

$ 766.62 $211.59 $ 555.03
1,750.23 496.20 1,254.03 i .
1,620.04 459.28 1,160.76

K i'

1,583.88 449.04 1,134.84 \

1,714.07 485.93 1,228.14 [

1,706.83 483.89 1,222.94 |:.
1,627.28 461.34 1,165.94 C'.I 1 ■
1,627.28 461.34 1,165.94 3 1
1,627.28 461.34 1,165.94 j.
1,620.05 459.28 1,160.77
1,612.81 457.23 1,155.58
1,598.34 453.13 1,145.21

I . I 
!

1,591.12 451.08 1,140.04 (

1,583.87 449.03 1,134.84 \

1,569.41 444.93 1,124.48
1,569.41 444.93 1,124.48 i [
1,468.16 408.88 1,059.28
1,468.16 408.88 1,059.28

I



NAME
MONTHS SERVED OUT 
OF RIGHTFUL PLACE

Dudley Walker 204

Elmore Daniel 217

Lamar Hill 200
Freddie Eaton 196

James L. Evans 193

Levi Eaton 160
Willie Sullivan 116

Samuel Lockhart 110

Milton Jones 107

Samuel Stallworth 102

Warren Eaton 107
Leroy Sims 102

Levon Thornton 50

Alphonse Creagh 83

David McAuthor 87

Milton Wicks 84
Thomas Hayes 37

AWARD NET AMOUNT
(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS (AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

$1,475.39 $410.90 $1,064.49

1,569.41 444.93 1,124.48

1,446.46 402.84 1,043.62
1,471.54 394.79 1.022.75

1,395.84 388.75 1.007.09
1,157.18 322.28 834.90

838.96 231.55 607.41

795.55 219.57 575.98

773.86 213.58 560.28

737.70 203.61 534.09

773.87 213.58 560.29
737.70 203.61 534.09

361.62 98.89 262.73

600.29 165.69 434.60

629.22 173.66 455.56
607.52 167.67 439.85
267.61 73.19 194.42

I

c.c\

I



NAME
MONTHS SERVED OUT 
OF RIGHTFUL PLACE

Aaron Eaton 59
Frank Stutts 13
Learthur Dawkins 54
Albert Dees 221
Coleman Eaton 218
Joseph Eaton 103
Martin Evans 210

AWARD
(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS

NET AMOUNT 
(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

$ 426.71 $116.70 $ 310.01
94.02 25.71 68.31

390.55 106.82 283.73
1,598.34 453.13 1,145.21
1,576.64 404.87 1,171.77

744.93 205.61 539. 32
1,518.78 430.58 1,088.20

cv

j



OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 
STILL EMPLOYED AS OF DECEMBER 4, 1972 
AND LAWSON HARVEY_________________ __

NAME
AWARD

(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS
NET AMOUNT 

(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

Adams, Angie Mary $50.00 $13.68 $36.32

Adams, Horace 50.00 13.68 36.32

Anderson, Dan 50.00 13.68 36.32

Anderson, Walter 50.00 13.68 36.32

Austin, Harry 50.00 13.68 36.32

Barney, Mamie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Bell, Joseph C. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Black, Helen 50.00 13.68 36.32

Blake, John A. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Bolden, Freeman 50.00 13.68 36.32

Brackett, Doretha 50.00 13.68 36.32

Brown, Kenneth E. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Burke, Arsie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Burke, Donald E. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Bush, Annie I. 50.00 13,68 36.32

Bush, Ernest A. 50.00 22.76 27.24

Caster, Francene 50.00 13.68 36.32

Catlin, William L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Chambers, Ollie J. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Chaney, Melvin 50.00 13.68 36.32

Chestang, Carl D. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Clark, Bennie Lee 50.00 13.68 36.32

Clark, Billy Ray 50.00 13.68 36.32

Colston, John 50.00 13.68 36.32

Cowan, Alex 50.00 13.68 36.32

Cowan, Edward 50.00 13.68 36.32

Cunningham, Willie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Curtis, Lonnie 50.00 13.68 36.32

4 2 2



NAME
AWARD

(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS
NET AMOUNT 

(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

Daniels, Freddie $50.00 $13.68 $36.32

Davis, David 50.00 13.68 36.32

Davis, Delroy 50.00 13.68 36.32

Davis, Edward C. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Davis, Nathaniel 50.00 13.68 36.32

Dawson, Davain 50.00 13.68 36.32

Dean, Roosevelt F. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Diamond, H. J. 50.00 22.76 27.24

Dumas, Gracie 50.OP 13.68 36.32

Durggin, Ellen 50.00 13.68 36.32

Dubose, Willie 0. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Evans, Alvin 50.00 13.68 36.32

Ezell, Betty 50.00 13.68 36.32

Ezell, Roy 50.00 13.68 36.32

Feagin, Edward E. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Flott, Larry L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Flott, Larry Y. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Flott, Leo 50.00 13.68 36.32

Flott, Willie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Franklin, Annie M. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Gallaway, Henry 50.00 13.68 36.32

Gamble, Dandrick 50.00 13.68 36.32

Gamble, Delois 50.00 13.68 36.32

Gamble, Gregory 50.00 13.68 36.32

Gaston, Robert 50.00 13.68 36.32

Glover, Alphonse 50.00 13.68 36.32

Glover, David 50.00 13.68 36.32

Goodwin, Carl 50.00 13.68 36.32

Greene, Cora M. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Harris, Joe 50.00 13.68 36.32

423



NAME
AWARD

(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS
NET AMOUNT 

(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

Harris, Theodore $50.00 $13.68 $36.32

Heard, Ronald 50.00 13.68 36.32

Henderson, Cherry 50.00 13.68 36.32

Hill, Mable 50.00 13.68 36.32

Howze, Xsiah 50.00 13.68 36.32

Hunt,Larry 50.00 13.68 36.32

James, Carrie 50.00 13.68 36.32

James, Odell 50.00 13.68 36 .32
James, Willie D. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jenkins, Benn 50.00 13.68 36.32

Johnson, Charles J. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Johnson, Wilson 50.00 13.68 36.32

Joiner, Horace 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, Bennie J. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, Bobby C. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, Cora 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, Eddie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, John H. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Jones, Sarah J. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Kimbrough, Edna 50.00 13.68 36.32

King, John 50.00 13.68 36.32

Kirksey, Margie M. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Lafiette, Larry 50.00 13.68 36.32

Little, Ellis L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

McKinney, George 50.00 13.68 36.32

McCree, Ronald 0. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Martin, Frank Lee 50.00 13.68 36.32

Martin, Johnny 50.00 13.68 36.32

Mays, Bobby R. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Mencey, Wesley 50.00 13.68 36.32

Mills, Samuel 50.00 13.68 36.32

424



NAME
AWARD

(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS
NET AMOUNT 

(AFTER DEDUCTIONS)

Moore, Jacob $50.00 $13.68 $36.32

Moore, Lee B. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Mullins, Robert L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Murphy, Barbara 50.00 13.68 36.32

Owens, Minnie L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Patrick, Charles 50.00 13.68 36.32

Patrick, Charlie 50.00 13.68 36.32

Patrick, Minnie Lee 50.00 13.68 36.32

Penn, George 50.00 13.68 36.32

Perkins, George 50.00 13.68 36.32

Poe, William 50.00 13.68 36.32

Pugh, Harry B. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Pugh, Phyllis 50.00 13.68 36.32

Pugh, Sidney 50.00 13.68 36.32

Pritchett, Roy L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Quinney, Norman 50.00 13.68 36.32

Reed, James L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Rhodes, Ortia 50.00 13.68 36.32

Rodgers, Robert L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Robinson, Deloris 50.00 13.68 36.32

Scott, Joseph 50.00 13.68 36.32

Scruggs, Vida 50.00 13.68 36.32

Sims, Charles 50.00 13.68 36.32

Sims, Jerome 50.00 13.68 36.32

Smith, Joe Wade 50.00 13.68 36.32

Stephens, Tommy R. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Stephens, Charles 50.00 13.68 36.32

Stone, Frank L., Jr. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Stone, Thomas 50.00 13.68 36.32

Sullivan, Sadie 50.00 13.68 36.32

425 £ 3 / a ..

M |



NAME
AWARD

(GROSS AMOUNT) DEDUCTIONS
NET AMOUNT 

(AFTER DEDUCTIONS

Sullivan* William $50.00 $22.76 $27.24
Tarver, Albert 50.00 13.68 36.32
Taylor, Charles 50.00 13.68 36.32
Taylor, Joseph 50.00 13.68 36.32
Thicklin, Charlie 50.00 13.68 36.32
Thomas, Andrew 50.00 13.68 36.32
Turner, Lawrence 50.00 13.68 36.32

Walker, Johnny 50.00 13.68 36.32
Ward, Arthur J. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Watkins, Elijah 50.00 13.68 36.32
Wiggins, LaVaughn 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, Arthur L. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, John H. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, Josephine 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, Mary J. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, Sarah G. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Williams, Willie 50.00 13.68 36.32
Winbush, Leonard 50.00 13.68 36.32
Wright, Henry E. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Collins, Gladys 50.00 13.68 36.32
Collins, Chadroch 50.00 13.68 36.32
Doss, Simon, Jr. 50.00 13.68 36.32
Greene, John 50.00 13.68 36.32
West, Amanda 50.00 13.68 36.32
Hamilton, Alberta 50.00 13.68 36.32

Roberson, Julius 50.00 13.68 36.32

Smith, Richard 50.00 13.68 36.32
Smiley, Ernest L. 50.00 13.68 36.32

Williams, Barbara 50.00 13.68 36.32

Harvey, Lawson 50.00 13.68 36.32

6.9,



IM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, et al., 
Plaintiffs,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6648-71-P

HARRY AUSTIN, et al. , 

Plaintiffs,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA, INC., et al. ,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 

6768-71-P

‘-7 /
/'y

ORDER
FINALLY APPROVING METHOD 
OF DISTRIBUTING BACK PAY 
TO PLAINTIFF CLASS MEMBERS

Pursuant to the order of this court dated June 15, 1973, 

adopting a method for distributing back pay to the plaintiff 
class, according to the settlement agreement approved by order 

of this court on January 11, 1973, this court having received 
satisfactory evidence that the defendant company has computed 
the net amount each plaintiff class member is to receive 
according to the prescribed method after the appropriate deduc­

tion have been made, and that counsel for plaintiffs have 
mailed or hand delivered to each member of the plaintiff class

430

jsa



a copy of the Notice of Compromise and Settlement of Back 
Pay Claims heretofore approved by the court, pursuant to 
an Order dated October 24, 1973, a hearing was held in open 
court on October 25, 1973, and objections to the suitability 
of the proposed distribution of back pay among the plaintiff 
class were thereupon made by Harry L. Austin, Charles Patrick, 
Bobby Mays, and Shirley Myrick. Upon due consideration, the 

court makes the following findings concerning the aforesaid 
objections:

(D Shirley Myrick was an employee of the defendant 
company whose employment was voluntarily terminated prior to 
December 4, 1972. Therefore, in accordance with the final 

class definition contained in the Settlement Agreement approved 
by this court by order dated January 7, 1973, Ms. Myrick is 
not a party to this action, and her objection is due to be 
denied.

(2) Harry Austin is a current employee in the 
defendant's Nylon Plant and is, therefore, a member of the 

plaintiff class. Mr. Austin is not, however, a member of the 
affected class as defined in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement. 
His claim for more than a nominal share in the back pay award 
is based on a back pay claim for the period following his 
termination by Courtaulds for alleged misconduct and his sub­
sequent reinstatement pursuant to a union grievance arbitration, 

which denied his claim for back pay. No demand was made in

-2-



this action against the defendant company to recover the 

back pay which was denied Mr. Austin in the grievance proceeding. 
That claim was simply not an issue in this lawsuit. Under the 
proposed method for distributing back pay submitted to the 
court by plaintiffs, Mr. Austin was to have received an additional 

arbitrary share of the back pay award because he was one of the 
named plaintiffs in these consolidated actions. By order dated 

May 17, 1973, the court sustained the objection of defendant 
Courtaulds to that portion of plaintiffs' proposed method of 
distributing back pay., This court has no authority under the 
causes of action and equitable theories advanced in this law­
suit to award extra shares of the total back pay award to 
particular members of the class because they were named plain­
tiffs herein. Mr. Austin's objections to the proposed method 
of distributing back pay are due to be overruled.

(3) Charles Patrick and Bobby Mays are presently 
employed in the Production lines of progression in Courtaulds' 
Nylon Plant. As such, they are members of the plaintiff 
class, but are not members of the affected class set out in the 
aforementioned Settlement Agreement. They were both hired 

as Janitors in the Nylon Plant in 1965. Mr. Patrick transferred 
to a Nylon production job in 1966, Mr. Mays transferred to a 
Nylon production job on May 15, 1967. Both contend that they 
should receive more than nominal shares of the back pay award 
on the grounds that, prior to the aforesaid dates of promotion

-3-

4 3 2 'J 2 3 5 7 c _ .



to the lines of progression in the Nylon Plant, they had been 

denied or discouraged from utilizing the opportunity to bid 
for production jobs on account of their race. Therefore, they 

contend that they should be members of the affected class, 
which is defined in the Settlement Agreement approved by the 

court on January 11, 1973. However, the affected class was 
defined by plaintiffs' theory in this action to include only 
those black Courtaulds employees who had been formally segregated 
by race in the Rayon Plant. Plaintiffs did not contend that 
formal racial segregation of jobs ever existed in the Nylon 
Plant, which did not begin operations until 1965. Back pay 

is only one of several remedies provided specially for members of 
the affected class, as black employees who had once been sub­

ject to formal racial segregation. Although they were 
notified and given opportunity to appear at a hearing before 
this court on January 11, 1973, no objections were raised at 

that time by either Mr. Mays or Mr. Patrick to the terms and 
conditions of the final settlement agreement. Therefore,

Mr. Mays and Mr. Patrick are not members of the affected class, 
according to the theory upon which this case was prosecuted, 
and are not eligible to share in the back pay to be awarded 
the affected class herein. Their claims that they were 
individually retarded in their movement from Janitor to 
production jobs in the Nylon Plant were not raised at any time 
in the prosecution of this action. Therefore, they are 

entirely untried allegations of racial discrimination which 
have not been among the issues presented herein. Thus, the



claims of Mr. Mays and Mr. Patrick have not been adjudicated 

and may still be actionable, if they are not barred by the 
limitations of time. The objections of Mr. Charles Patrick 
and Mr. Bobby Mays are due to be overruled.

The Settlement Agreement is just, adequate, fair and 
reasonable and is hereby finally approved by the Court; and, 
there being no just reason for delay, the Court expressly 

orders that this Order and Final Judgment shall be entered as, 
and shall be, a final judgment approving the Settlement 
Agreement and in favor of the Class Members against the 

defendant, within the meaning of and in accordance with Rule 
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 

the objections presented to the Proposed Method for Distributing 
Back Pay among the plaintiff class herein raised by Harry L. 

Austin, Charles Patrick, Bobby Mays, and Shirley Myrick, be 
and hereby are, overruled, and the method for distributing 
back pay to plaintiff class members approved by this court on 
June 15, 1973, is HEREBY finally approved.

It is further ORDERED that on the next regular pay day 
following entry of this order, the company will draw checks 
in the net amounts determined to be due according to the method 
of distribution approved by the court and shall distribute 
same to members of the plaintiff class, upon their execution 
of the appropriate release form; except that the shares of 

the deceased members of the plaintiff class, Elmore Gamble,

5

3 Z 3 7 ^



■p

William Warren, and Robert Mullins, shall be distributed 
according to the method set out in plaintiffs' motion to 
substitute parties plaintiff, filed November 7, 1973, and 
approved by this court's order dated November 14, 1973.

day of __________Done this , 1973.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U. S. DISTRICT COURT
sou. Disrr. a l a .

FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE
DAY O F _/yyo ,

10Z3-, MINUTE ENTRY
no ____3.4.723_______
WILLI J. O'CONNOR, CT3EEK 

~~rTj j ,C-/~_____B V
I DfTT1 .DEPUTY CLERK

- 6 -

43;



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

_____________ SOUTHERN DIVISION_____________

Plaintiffs Freddie Eaton and Willie Sullivan, on behalf

1. On January 11, 1973, this Court entered an order

2. Section VII of said Settlement Agreement provides,

D. 1. When members of the Affected Class 
compete with each other or with employees 
not of the Affected class as to layoff, 
demotion and recall, Court Seniority shall 
be the applicable seniority for such purposes 
and may be utilized by Affected Class employee, 
and any other employees so competing. Court 
Seniority for the purposes of demotion, layoff 
and recall shall not be lost by failure either 
to bid or to accept an entry level job as is 
set forth in preceding Paragraph "C".

2. Subject to the express exception of 
Paragraph III.(F) above, an Affected Class 
employee or any other person can only use 
his Court Seniority in case of demotion, 
layoff or recall from his position in the line 
of progression in which he is as of the date

FREDDIE EATON, etc.,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER

vs. 6648-71-P
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA 
INC., etc.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA 
INC., etc.,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 
AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE WILLIAM J. O'CONNC:?

of themselves and all other members of the Affected Class herein,
would show unto the Court as follows:

approving the Settlement Agreement between the parties resolving 
and adjudicating all matters in controversy herein.

in relevant part, as follows:

C'nO ",ftiTTrn ' ) «fer Argurserithis Settlement Agreement downward to the
OUlDiVll i } t'J ( 1 Without Argument/ /\ '\ ■ -( ( / )  On Briefs.

jay Direction of Lie Court,

Wijiiarn J. CConoor, Clerir



■'N

entry job in that same line of progression.
He can at no time use Court Seniority to 
jump from section to section or from depart­
ment to department.

3. As can be seen from the answer of Donald C. Smith, 
Manager of Industrial Relations, dated December 12, 1974, in 
response to a joint grievance filed by plaintiffs Freddie Eaton 
and Willie Sullivan on or about November 26, 1974, copies of which 
are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively, the defendant 
Company has construed the above paragraphs of the Settlement 
Agreement to prohibit Affected Class members from utilizing their 
Company (Court) seniority to avoid demotions and cutbacks from 
jobs to which they have advanced subsequent to this Court's 
approval of the Settlement Agreement on January 11, 1973.

4. The defendant Company's interpretation of paragraphs
D. 1. and D. 2. of Section VII of the Settlement Agreement is 
contrary to both the literal terms of the Agreement and to the 
"rightful place" principle enunciated by the Fifth Circuit as y
a remedy for the ongoing effects of prior racial job segregation.

5. A literal reading of paragraph D. 1. above shows 
the general rule that Affected Class members must be allowed to 
use their company seniority when competing with Non-Affected 
Class employees with respect to layoff, demotion and recall.
However, the defendant Company has interpreted paragraph D. 2. 
above in a manner that makes the phrase "in which he is as. of the 
date of this Settlement Agreement" modify the noun "position" instead 
of the noun "line of progression." This construction of the 
language by the Company, which requires the Affected Class members
to compete with job and department seniority with respect to 
demotions and cut-backs from jobs in their same line of progression 
higher than the jobs they held on January 11, 1973, effectively 
eliminates the usefulness of Company seniority as a means by which 
Affected Class members can avoid cut-backs and demotions.

-2-



)

6. The so-called "rightful place" remedy, after which 
the Settlement Agreement was modeled, has from its inception 
contemplated the full use of Company seniority by Affected Class 
members in all demotion and layoff situations. As originally 
enunciated in Judge Heebe's Crown-Zellerbach decree, the "rightful 
place" formula required that

/t/otal mill seniority (i.e., the length 
of continuous service in the mill) alone shall 
determine who the "senior" bidder or employee 
is for purposes of permanent or thirty-day 
promotions, or for purposes of demotion in all 
circumstances in which one or more of the 
competing employees is a Negro employee in the 
specified class....

United States v. Local 189, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, 
AFL-CIO, CLC, 301 F.Supp. 906, 919-20 (E.D. La. 1969), aff'd, 416
F.2d 980, 988 (5th Cir. 1969). E.g., accord, Pettway v. American 
Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211, 248 (5th Cir. 1974); Bing v. 
Roadway Express Company, Inc., 485 F.2d 441, 450 (5th Cir. 1973); 
Fluker v. Locals 265 and 940, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, 
AFL-CIO, 6 E.P.D. para. 8807 (S.D. Ala. 1972)(the "Jackson Memo­
randum" ).

7. Through undersigned counsel, plaintiffs have 
attempted unsuccessfully to resolve this dispute informally, 
following submission of Mr. Smith's aforesaid answer to the 
grievance filed by Freddie Eaton and Willie Sullivan.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs move the Court for an order declaring 
their rights and enforcing this Court1s decree under the aforesaid 
Settlement Agreement as follows:

(1) Declaring that the Settlement Agreement, and more 
particularly paragraphs D„ 1. and D- 2. of Section VII thereof, 
require the defendants to allow members of the Affected Class to 
utilize their company (court) seniority when competing with 
non-Affected Class employees with respect to layoff, demotion and 
recall from and to all jobs in their line of progression, without 
regard to the job they held on the effective date of the Settlement 
Agreement, excepting only those occassions when Affected Class

-3-

43a



;
1

i.

members transfer from the line of progression in which they were 
located on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, as 
contemplated by paragraph D.2. of Section VII.

(2) Requiring the defendant Company to submit a full 
and complete report to the Court, with copies served on counsel 
for all other parties, indicating each occassion since January 11, 
1973, when any member of the Affected Class has been demoted, cut­
back, laid off or not recalled from or to a job in his line of 
progression contrary to his rights as declared in (1) supra.

(3) Requiring the defendants immediately to redress 
fully all such violations of the Settlement Agreement, including 
the granting to each Affected Class member thus injured all 
promotions he lost as a result of the aforesaid violations and 
the award to each such Affected Class member of full back pay.

(4) Awarding plaintiffs their costs and expenses 
incurred in seeking redress of the defendant Company's aforesaid 
violation of the Settlement Agreement, including a reasonable 
attorney's fee.

(5) Providing such other and further relief as the 
Court may deem just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted this day of March, 1975.
CRAWFORD, BLACKSHER & KENNEDY 
1407 DAVIS AVENUE 
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603

By 4
U. BLACKSHER

JACK GREENBERG 
MORRIS J. BALLER 

SUITE 2030 
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE 
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

,7*6I do hereby certify that on the v"2*4 day of March, 1975,
I served a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 
AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE upon all counsel of record in this case 
as listed below by depositing same in United States Mail, postage 
prepaid.

Paul W. Brock, Esq.
Post Office Box 123 
Mobile, Alabama 35601
Benjamin Erdreich, Esq. 
John Falkenberry, Esq. 
Suite 201
409 North ZL st Street 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Otto Simon, Esq.
1010 Van Antwerp Building 
Mobile, Alabama 36602

- 5 -



Person &•! f o r a  Now U A
; COU7" •’A D L D S  Noi T H  A M E R I C f  TNC. 

LeMoyne Plant .

C O M P L A I N T  FC \ EXHIBIT "A"

Complaint Number
74-112

tv». c u > ci _• D ecem ber 27, 1974
Date Submitted to Step Three:----------------------------------------- Dateof Hearing on Complaint:

Rayon Spinning
Department or Section

D ecem ber 12, 1974

Disposition: Date of Disposition:
January 21, 1975

The G rievan ts have the im press ion  that at the tim e they w e re  dem oted down the 
l in e -o f-p ro g re s s io n  in the ir Spinning Section that they could use th e ir  Court S en io rity  
in com petition  with o thers. They  stated that M r. B lacksher, the ir A ttorney , had 
adv ised  them o f th is. W e ll, i f  this is  the case, M r. B lacksher is  w rong in h is 
in terpreta tion  o f the Court Settlem ent and has given the G rievan ts bad adv ice .

R e fe ren ce : F red d ie  Eaton etc. V s . Courtaulds N orth  A m er ica , Inc. Settlem ent
Agreem ent; Pa ragraph  V II, Court Sen iority  D, 2.
"Subject to the exp ress  exception in Paragraph  HI (F ) above, an a ffec ted  c lass  
em p loyee  or any other person  can only 'u se  his Court S en iority  in case  of dem otion, 
la y -o ff ,  o r r e c a ll from  his position  in the lin e  of p rog ress ion  in which he is  as o f 
the date o f th is settlem en t agreem en t downward to the en try job  in that same lin e  o f 
p ro g ress ion . He can at no tim e use Court Sen iority  to jump from  section  to section  
o r - fr o m  Departm ent to  D ep a rtm en t." r

The G rievan ts dem otion occu rred  on a date a fte r  January 11, 1973 and from  a job  
h igher in the line o f p rog ress ion  than the ones they had on the date o f the Court 
Settlem ent. A s  a consequence, they had to use th e ir  section  sen io r ity  down to  the 
job  they occupied on January 11, 1973. A t that t im e  they could then p ick  up th e ir  
Court S en iority .

Eaton and Sullivan w e re  dem oted s tr ic t ly  in accordance w ith the Court Settlem ent.
I
i

Result: Withdrawn ( ) Settled ( ) Referred to Step Four ( )

' I
Chairman Union Grievance Committee i

&  (?.
Manager of Industrial Relations



Panonnmi Tom No. 38 8

COURTAULDS NO RTH  A  MX

LeM oyns Plant
CO M PLA IN T FORM

E X H I B I T  " B "

Complaint Number

Dat« Filed____ November 26. 197b-

Employee’s
Name

Fred Eaton and Willie Sullivan
J a * r 7 A —

—Time Filed-

Bale checker
Job

Classification

Department or Section

8 a.m._______
3082

Clock
Number

I  have submitted the following complaint to my foreman as required by Step One o f the Grievance Procedure and desire to 
le  hrst occurrence or the facts giving rise to this complaint took place within the last fourteen calendar days.process it further. The 

NATURE OF CO M PLAINT: Alleged violation of Article Sectio

-Why have_ire. been, denied onr ecual rights in demoting puminypnc 
which has already been von in the court order?_______________

1

I

Settlement or Remedy Desired:- Jhafc wg^nlncRd on. tha job w hich  nun seniority
-ca.lls for and all nonies_be paid that m.i Jngt <-m aeconnt n-f* the
‘company’s irregular reasoning.

■< / ' - / i n  < ’ Q
Union Representative

, ify , j  r
tentative Signature 1 I *  f e .  p loyeeTs iJ ia ttj^

Date Submitted to Step Tw o :- 

j Disposition:_______________________

Date o f Disposition:-

3. DISTRICT Utuj gpn niST. At A.
PLED IN CLEW' S

MAR 2 5 1975

Result: Withdrawn ( ) Settled ( ) Referred to Step Three ( )

Signature of Union Departmental Chairman

WILLIAM J. O’CONN^

Signature of Department Head



Mn

0  o

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

213 U. S. COURT HOUSE & CUSTOM HOUSE 
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36602

DATE: AUGUST 27, 1975
TO: Mr. James U. Blacksher, 1407 Davis Ave., Mobile, Alabama 36603 

Messrs. Paul Brock & Ben Rowe, P. 0. Box 123, Mobile, Al. 36601 
Mr. Otto E. Simon, 1010 Van Antwerp Bldg., Mobile, Alabama 36602

2: Vtfivi:RE; 1/CrVIL ACTION NO. 6643-71-P
EATON, ET AL -VS- COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6 7 6 8 - 7 I - P  
AUSTIN, ET AL VS. COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL

* * *
* *•

* * * * * # # * « 
■ * * • * ■ & * * * «■ * *- * * #

i You are advised that on the 27TH day of AUGUST_____ , 1975
the following action was taken in the above-entitled casesby 
Judge Virgil Pittman____________ ;

1. ) Motion to dismiss & motion to stay filed by def. UNIONS on 3-27-75:
motion to stay GRANTED pending arbitration. Parties to advise the Court 

F when ruling is entered in arbitration & plaintiffs' motion for declaration
of rights to be set specially.

2. ) Motion for evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for declaration of
rights filed by defendant COURTAULDS on 3-27-75: Motion stayed. See order
3-27-75 on defendant UNIONS' motion to stay.

3. ) Motion to stay filed by defendant COURTAULDS on 3-26-35 is GRANTED. See
order 3/27/75 endorsed on def. UNIONS' motion to stay.

WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR, CLERK

BY:
Deputy Cler!^



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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDDIE EATON, etc.,
Plaintiffs,

V.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc.,

Defendants.

HARRY L. AUSTIN,
Plaintiff,

V.
COURTAULDS NORTH 
AMERICA INC., etc., '

^Defendants.

ORDER

On January 11, 1973, this court entered an 
order approving the Settlement Agreement between 
the parties in the above styled actions.

Plaintiffs Freddie Eaton and Willie Sullivan, 
on behalf of themselves and all other members of 
the affected class have filed a "Motion for Declara­
tion of Rights and Enforcement of Decree." The 
motion calls into question the interpretation to be 
given to Paragraph VII.(D)(1) and (D)(2) of the 
Settlement Agreement.

Paragraph VII of the Agreement deals with 
"Court Seniority." Paragraph VII (A) of the Agree­
ment defines the affected class as "those black

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
)
) No. 6648-71-P
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
)
) No. 6768-71-P
)
)
)
)

451



-~\.

employees hired into the labor section prior to 
October 21, 1968, and who are named on the attached 
Exhibit One."-'7 Paragraph VII (B) specifies that

1/ Plaintiffs Eaton and Sullivan are both named in 
the list of 57 employees attached as Exhibit One 
to the Agreement. ... ,

Court Seniority "shall be seniority in addition to 
that existing under the current . . .  or any subse­
quent collective bargaining agreement." and further 
defines Court Seniority as the "length of continuous 
service with Courtaulds."

The specific provisions of Paragraph VII in­
volved in this motion, Paragraph VII (D)(1) and
(D) (2)_, provide in pertinent part as follows:

D. 1. When members of the Affected 
Class compete with each other or 
with employees not of the class as 
to layoff, demotion and recall,
Court Seniority shall be the appli- . 
cable seniority for such purposes 
and may be utilized by Affected Class 
employees and all other employees so 
competing.
D. 2. Subject to the express excep­
tion of Paragraph III.(F) above, an 
Affected Class employee or any other 
person can only use his Court Senior­
ity in case of demotion, layoff or 
recall from his position in the line 
of progression in which he is as of 
the date of this Settlement Agreement 
downward to the entry job in that same 
line of progression. He can at no 
time use Court Seniority to jump from 
section to section or from department 
to department.

The parties are in agreement that the factual 
circumstances giving rise to the filing of the instant

-2-

452



motion are not in dispute. Those circumstances and 
the parties contentions with regard to the construc­
tion to be given to Paragraph VII (D)(1) and (D)(2) 
were the subject of a decision by an impartial arbi­
trator to whom the controversy was submitted under 
the provisions of Paragraph IX of the Agreement.

The uncontested facts as summarized by the 
arbitrator reflect that plaintiffs Eaton and Sullivan 
were each employed in the position of Utility Operator 
No. 3 on the January 11, 1973 approval date of the 
Settlement Agreement. These jobs were then three 
levels up the line of progression in the spinning 
section in the rayon plant. Plaintiffs Eaton and 
Sullivan each advanced up the line of progression 
in their section to the job position of "Bale Checker" 
through the use of their Court Seniority. Each plain­
tiff was subsequently returned back to his base posi­
tion of Utility Operator No. 3 as a result of reduction 
in forces by the contractual application of section 
seniority.

The arbitrator summarized the contentions of the 
parties as follows:

All grievants assert the same position.
They contend that the previously limited 
Section Seniority negotiated in the con­
tract has been modified by judicial rul­
ing to the extent that the grievants and 
all other members of the protected "af­
fected class’’ now possess plant-wide 
seniority^ or as it is called "Court 
Seniority ' which permitted them on lay­
off from the positions from which they 

' had advanced as a result of the Court
Seniority to utilize that same court or

-3-

453



plant-wide seniority in competition 
with all others. The Company on the 
other hand, asserts that by the ex­
press language of Article VII.D. 2. 
of the Settlement Agreement, the 
grievants are entitled to use Court 
Seniority in the case of demotion, 
layoff or recall downward from their 
respective positions held on January 11,
1973 in their lines of progression. This 
means then that as to Grievants Sullivan 
and Eaton their demotions following re­
duction in forces proceeded according 
to contractual seniority until they 
reached their base position which was 
Utility Operator No. 3 at which time 
under the provisions of Article VII.D. 2. 
they became entitled to use Court 
Seniority with reference to further 
demotion.

The arbitrator construed the language of
Paragraph VII (D)(2)- (referred to as Article VII.D. 2.
in his opinion) and concluded that the language of
that provision of the Agreement supported the position
taken by the Company. The arbitrator noted:

The language of that section of the 
Settlement Agreement states clearly 
and without ambiguity that the Af­
fected Class employee "can only use 
his Court Seniority in case of de­
motion, layoff or recall from his 
position in the line of progression 
in which he is as of the date of 
this Settlement Agreement downward 
to the entry job in that same line 
of progression." The operative words 
"in which he is as of.the date of 
this Settlement Agreement" clearly 
limit and qualify the use of Court 
Seniority under the circumstances 
of the demotion in question. If the 
words quoted were omitted then ob­
viously Court Seniority for the pur­
poses listed would have greater ap­
plication. But the words "in which 
he is as of the date of this Settle­
ment Agreement"are not ambiguous and 

‘ specify a point in time at which the
Court Seniority for purposes of de­
motion becomes an effective tool in

-4-

454



1

in the enlargement of seniority 
rights which previously existed 
under the contract. This being 
true, it follows that neither Mr.
Sullivan nor Mr. Eaton had the 
right to use the expanded court or 
plaint-wide seniority to compete 
with all others at the time of lay­
off but rather had to wait until 
they reached their base job pos­
sessed "as of the date of this 
Settlement Agreement" before 
utilizing the Court Seniority.

The plaintiffs now argue that (1) the language 
of Paragraph VII (D)(2) of the Agreement is in fact 
ambiguous when read in conjunction with Paragraph 
VII (D)(7) of the Agreement, (2) the Company’s 
construction-of Paragraph VII (D)(2) directly con­
tradicts the 'rightful place” theory enunciated by 
the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Local 189,
416-F*2d 980, 988 (5th Cir. 1969), and (3) the 
Company's construction of Paragraph VII (D)(2) is 
contrary to the intent of the parties.

The plaintiffs' first argument overlooks the 
fact that Paragraph VII (D)(2) is prefaced by a 
clause which removes any ambiguity between Paragraph 
VII (D)(1)'s apparent mandate that Court Seniority 
be applied in all circumstances where a demotion is 
involved and the limitation in Paragraph VII (D)(2) 
which restricts the use of Court Seniority to demotions 
downward from the position in the line of progression 
occupied as of the date of the Settlement Agreement.

Paragraph VII (D)(2) begins with a clause which 
-makes that provision "subject to the express exception

-5-.

*55



of Paragraph III (F). . . ." of the Settlement Agree­
ment. Paragraph III (F) requires the Company to make 
an opportunity available to ten named members of the 
Affected Class to advance into an entry level job in 
either of two specified sections of the rayon plant 
for a specified amount of time. That section con­
cludes with the following pertinent language:

Any of said named employees accept­
ing the tendered opportunity to ad­
vance into said entry level job 
shall thereafter have Court Senior­
ity for purposes of promotion^ demo- 
tion, layoff and recall in accordance 
with Paragraphs VII, C and D (1) hereof, 
respectively. (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the introductory clause of Paragraph 
VII (D)(2) which refers to Paragraph III (F) removes 
any ambiguity between the unrestricted use of Court 
Seniority under Paragraph VII (D)(1) and the restricted 
use of Court Seniority under Paragraph VII (D)(2). The 
ten members of the Affected Class named in Paragraph 
III (F) are afforded the use of Court Seniority for 
the purposes of ". . . demotion, layoff and recall 
. . . ." under the provisions of Paragraph VII (D)(1). 
The remaining members of the Affected Class including 
the instant plaintiffs are required under Paragraph 
VII (D)(2) to use contractual seniority for the pur­
poses of ". . . demotion, layoff and recall. . . . "  
until they reach their base position in the line of 
progression as of the date of the Settlement Agreement 
.at which point they would be entitled to use Court 
Seniority.

- 6-

4 5 6



,

The plaintiffs’ second argument with regard to 
the "rightful place" doctrine enunciated in United 
States v. Loca1 189, supra, and their third argument 
with regard to the "intent" of the parties are with­
out merit.

United States v. Local 189, supra, involved 
a judgment entered by a court after "aerial on the 
merits. The cases here involved never reached trial 
but were instead compromised by the Settlement Agree­
ment before the court on the instant motion. This 
court believes now, as it did on January 13, 1973, 
that the Settlement Agreement between the parties 
in these actions represents an equitable resolution 
of the issues raised in these actions and that the 
Agreement was designed to and does foster voluntary 
compliance with the mandates of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.

With regard to the argument based on the in­
tent of the parties, counsel for the plaintiffs 
correctly notes by brief that the court must first 
look to the language of the Settlement Agreement.
This court, as was the case with the arbitrator, 
finds no ambiguity as to the provisions of Paragraph 
VII (D)(1) and (D)(2) and discerns no need to enter­
tain an argument that the clear language of the 
challenged provisions does not reflect the plaintiffs' 
understanding of the intent of the parties.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 
that the relief sought in the "Motion for Declaration

-7-

457



-<

of Rights and Enforcement of Decree" filed by plain­
tiffs Freddie Eaton and Willie Sullivan be, and the 
same is, hereby DENIED.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.
FILEEL-AND ENTERED THIS THE 

/ 4 ri/ DAY OF APRIL 1976 
MINUTE ENTRY NO 4 0 5 0 8  

DR, CLERK

Done, this the £y of April, 1976.

UNI fRICT JUDGE

- 8 -

<*58



0

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

U, S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA. 

PILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

WAY l 3 1976

FREDDIE EATON, et al., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)VS. )
)COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC., )
)Defendant. )

HARRY L. AUSTIN, et al., )
)Plaintiffs, )
)VS. )
)COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA,INC., )
)Defendant. )

WILLIAM J. O'CONNOR
CLERK

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 6648-71-P

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 6768-71-P

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Freddie Eaton, Alphonse 
Creagh, Warren Eaton, Levon Thornton,Lamar Hill, Willie 
Sullivan, Lawson Harvey, Willie Stallworth, Leroy Sims,
Herman Blackmon, Earl Lee Eaton, Willie Goodwin and Roosevelt 
Hurd, plaintiffs above named in Civil Action No. 6648-71-P, 
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit from the Order entered April 14, 1976, denying 
the relief sought in the "Motion for Declaration of Rights 
and Enforcement of Decree" filed by plaintiffs Freddie Eaton 
and Willie Sullivan.

May 13, 1976.

CRAWFORD, BLACKSHER, FIGURES & BROWN
1407 DAVIS AVENUE
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603

By

459



A R T I C L E  XI

S E N I O R I T Y

S e c t i o n  A  - P r o b a t i o n a r y  E m p l o y e e s .  N e w l y  h i r e d  E m p l o y e e s  

s h a l l  b e  w i t h o u t  s e n i o r i t y  f o r  the  f i r s t  4 m o n t h s  o f  e m p l o y m e n t ,  d u r i n g  

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

a t . t b e  C o m p a n y ' s  c o m p l e t e  d i s c r e t i o n . '  H o w e v e r ,  i t  i s  u n d e r s t o o d  a nd  

a g r e e d  t h a t  s u c h  E m p l o y e e s  s h a l l  be  f r e e  t o  j o i n  the U n i o n  i m m e d i a t e l y  

u p o n  b e i n g  h i r e d  a n d  s h a l l  h a v e  r e c o u r s e  t o  t h e  g r i e v a n c e  p r o c e d u r e  c o n ­

t a i n e d  i n  A r t i c l e  X V  of  t h i s  A g r e e m e n t  on  a l l  m a t t e r s  e x c e p t  c o n t i n u e d  

e m p l o y m e n t  o r  d i s c h a r g e .  U p o n  c o m p l e t i o n  o f  4 m o n t h s '  e m p l o y m e n t ,  

E m p l o y e e s  w h o  a r e  r e t a i n e d  i n  e m p l o y m e n t  s h a l l  a c q u i r e  l e n g t h  of  c o n ­

t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  w i t h  the  C o m p a n y  a s  o f  t h e i r  l a s t  h i r i n g  d a t e s .  S h o u ld  a 

p r o b a t i o n a r y  E m p l o y e e  be t e r m i n a t e d  a n d  r e h i r e d  w i t h i n  a  3 0 - d a y  p e r i o d  

f o r  the  p u r p o s e  o f  g i v i n g  h i m  a s e c o n d  c h a n c e  to  p r o v e  h i m s e l f  a n d  he 

b e c o m e s  a  p e r m a n e n t  E m p l o y e e ,  h e  w i l l  a c q u i r e  s e n i o r i t y  a s  of  h i s  o r i g i n a l  

h i r i n g  d a t e .  In t h e  c a s e  o f  A p p r e n t i c e s  i n  t h e  E n g i n e e r i n g  D e p a r t m e n t ,  

s e e  A p p e n d i x  " E "  h e r e t o .

S e c t i o n  B  - S e n i o r i t y  L i s t s . A s  p r o m p t l y  a s  p o s s i b l e  a f t e r  the

s i g n i n g  o f  t h i s  A g r e e m e n t ,  the  C o m p a n y  s h a l l  p o s t  u p o n  b u l l e t i n  b o a r d s  o f
c

c o n v e n i e n t  a c c e s s  t o  t h e  E m p l o y e e s  c o n c e r n e d ,  a  s e n i o r i t y  l i s t  f o r  e a c h  

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n .  A  c o p y  o f  e a c h  s u c h  l i s t  s h a l l  b e  f u r n i s h e d  t o  the 

U n i o n .

A  s e n i o r i t y  l i s t  f o r  a  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s h a l l  s h o w  e a c h  E m p l o y e e ' s  l e n g t h  

of  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  i n  t h e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  a n d  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  w i t h  t h e

-21-



Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

C o m p a n y .  A  s e n i o r i t y  l i s t  f o r  a  S e c t i o n  s h a l l  s h o w  e a c h  E m p l o y e e ' s  

l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  the S e c t i o n  a n d  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  w i t h  t h e  

C o m p a n y .  W i t h i n  30 d a y s  a f t e r  a  s e n i o r i t y  l i s t  i s  p o s t e d ,  a n  E m p l o y e e  

m a y  p r o t e s t  a n y  a l l e g e d  e r r o r  t h e r e i n  b y  f i l i n g  a  g r i e v a n c e .  In the 

a b s e n c e  o f  a  w r i t t e n  p r o t e s t ,  t h e  s e n i o r i t y  l i s t  s h a l l  be  c o n s i d e r e d  c o r r e c t  

a n d  t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n  c o n t a i n e d  t h e r e o n  s h a l l  be  b i n d i n g  w i t h  r e s p e c t  to  

E m p l o y e e s  in  the  p a r t i c u l a r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n .  O n c e  in  e a c h  

6 m o n t h s  t h e  s e n i o r i t y  r o s t e r s  s h a l l  be  r e v i s e d  b y  t h e  C o m p a n y ,  d e l e t i n g  

t h e r e f r o m  t h e  n a m e s  o f  E m p l o y e e s  t e r m i n a t e d  o r  t r a n s f e r r e d ,  a n d  a d d i n g  

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

p o s t i n g ,  a n d  a  c o p y  o f  the  r e v i s e d  r o s t e r s  s h a l l  b e  f u r n i s h e d  t o  the  U n i o n .

S e c t i o n  C  - L e n g t h  o f  C o n t i n u o u s  S e r v i c e .  F o r  the  p u r p o s e s  o f  t h i s

A r t i c l e ,  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  s h a l l  m e a n ,  f o r  a  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,

l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  s u c h  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  a n d  f o r  a n  E m p l o y e e

w i t h  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y ,  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  t h e  a p p l i c a b l e  S e c t i o n .

If l e n g t h  of  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  i n  t h e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n ,  a s  t h e  c a s e

m a y  b e ,  i s  e q u a l  ( f o r  t w o  o r  m o r e  E m p l o y e e s  in  the  s a m e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r

S e c t i o n ) ,  l e n g t h  of c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  the  a p p r o p r i a t e  p l a n t  s h a l l  g o v e r n .

c
S h o u l d  t h a t  b e  e q u a l ,  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  w i t h  the  C o m p a n y  s h a l l  

g o v e r n .

C o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  o f  a n  E m p l o y e e  s h a l l  b e  d e e m e d  t o  b e  b r o k e n  b y  

a n y  o f  t h e  f o l l o w i n g :

1 .  D i s c h a r g e  f o r  j u s t  c a u s e .

2. Q u it ,  w i t h  o r  w i t h o u t  n o t i c e .

-22-



Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

3. A b s e n c e  w i t h o u t  n o t i c e  t o  the  C o m p a n y  f o r  

s e v e n  c o n s e c u t i v e  c a l e n d a r  d a y s .

4. F a i l u r e  t o  r e t u r n  t o  w o r k  f o l l o w i n g  e x p i r a t i o n  

o f  a n y  s p e c i f i e d  l e a v e  of  a b s e n c e .

5. F a i l u r e  to  r e p o r t  f o r  d u t y  o r  f u r n i s h  s a t i s f a c t o r y  

r e a s o n  f o r  no t  d o i n g  s o  w i t h i n  72 h o u r s  a f t e r  d a te  o f  d e l i v e r y  

o f  a  c e r t i f i e d  l e t t e r  m a i l e d  b y  the C o m p a n y  t o  h i s  l a s t  k n o w n  

a d d r e s s  a d v i s i n g  h i m  to  r e p o r t  f o r  d u t y .  ( W o r k i n g  out  a  . 

w e e k ' s  n o t i c e  t o  a n o t h e r  e m p l o y e r  s h a l l  b e  c o n s i d e r e d  a  

s a t i s f a c t o r y  r e a s o n  f o r  no t  r e p o r t i n g  w i t h i n  t h e  s p e c i f i e d  

t i m  e .

6. C o n t i n u o u s  l a y o f f  e x c e e d i n g  the E m p l o y e e ' s  l e n g t h  

o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  o r  f i v e  y e a r s ,  w h i c h e v e r  i s  s h o r t e r ;  

p r o v i d e d ,  h o w e v e r ,  t h a t  t h e  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  of

a n  E m p l o y e e  s h a l l  n o t  i n c l u d e  a n y  p e r i o d  of  c o n t i n u o u s  a b s e n c e  

f r o m  w o r k  i n  e x c e s s  o f  s i x  m o n t h s .

S e c t i o n  D - P r o m o t i o n  t o  E x e m p t  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  A n  E m p l o y e e  p r o ­

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

h i s  f o r m e r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n  f o r  a  p e r i o d  o f  12 m o n t h s  o n l y ,  a n d  i f  

r e t u r n e d  to  h i s  f o r m e r  j o b  a t  a  l a t e r  d a t e ,  h e  s h a l l  h a v e  h i s  p r e v i o u s  

s e n i o r i t y  d a t e  a d j u s t e d  b y  d e d u c t i n g  f r o m  s a m e  a l l  t i m e  i n  e x c e s s  o f  

12 m o n t h s  s p e n t  i n  t h e  e x e m p t  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

-23-



S e c t i o n  E  - S e n i o r i t y  a f t e r  a  T r a n s f e r . A n  E m p l o y e e  w h o . i s  

t r a n s f e r r e d  to  a n o t h e r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n  s h a l l  r e t a i n  a n d  c o n t i n u e  

to  a c c u m u l a t e  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  t h e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n  

f r o m  w h i c h  h e  w a s  t r a n s f e r r e d  f o r  12 m o n t h s  a f t e r  h i s  t r a n s f e r .  If s u c h  

E m p l o y e e  r e m a i n s  in  the  n e w  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n  f o r  m o r e  t h a n  

12 m o n t h s ,  h i s  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  in  h i s  n e w  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  

S e c t i o n  s h a l l  d a t e  f r o m  h i s  t r a n s f e r  t h e r e t o ,  a n d  he  s h a l l  t h e r e u p o n  f o r f e i t  

s e n i o r i t y  in  h i s  p r e v i o u s  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n .  S e n i o r i t y  m a y  no t  be 

a c c u m u l a t e d  i n  m o r e  t h a n  one C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  S e c t i o n  a t  the  s a m e  t i m e ,  

e x c e p t  i n  t h e  c a s e  o f  A p p r e n t i c e s .

S e c t i o n  F  - A p p l i c a t i o n  of  S e n i o r i t y . L e n g t h  of  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  

w i t h  the  C o m p a n y  s h a l l  be u s e d  in d e t e r m i n i n g  e l i g i b i l i t y  a s  i t  m a y  be  

a p p l i c a b l e  f o r  the  f o l l o w i n g  b e n e f i t s :  v a c a t i o n s ,  p a i d  h o l i d a y s ,  p e n s i o n s ,  

a n d  s h a l l  h a v e  n o  a p p l i c a t i o n  in p r o m o t i o n s ,  d e m o t i o n s ,  t r a n s f e r s ,  l a y o f f  

o r  r e c a l l ,  e x c e p t  a s  s p e c i f i c a l l y  p r o v i d e d  e l s e w h e r e  i n  t h i s  A g r e e m e n t .

S e c t i o n a l  a n d  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  s h a l l  b e  g i v e n  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  in 

p r o m o t i o n ,  d e m o t i o n ,  t r a n s f e r ,  l a y o f f  a n d  r e c a l l , '  a s  h e r e i n  s p e c i f i c a l l y  

p r o v i d e d .  H o w e v e r ,  i t  i s  u n d e r s t o o d  a n d  a g r e e d  t h a t  s e n i o r i t y  s h a l l  no t  be 

a p p l i e d  i n  s u c h  a  m a n n e r  a s  t o  r e q u i r e  the  C o m p a n y  to  r e t a i n  o r  r e c a l l  a n  

E m p l o y e e  w h o  i s  no t  q u a l i f i e d  t o  p e r f o r m  t h e  j o b  in q u e s t i o n .

S e c t i o n  G - L a y o f f  a n d  R e c a l l  f o r  E m p l o y e e s  w i t h  S e c t i o n  S e n i o r i t y .

In l a y i n g  o f f  a n d  d e m o t i n g  E m p l o y e e s  w i t h  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  i n  c o n n e c t i o n  w i t h

Art ic le  XI - S eniority
Continued

-24-



0 Art ic le  XI - Seniontiy
Continued

Q
i O

n

r i
L3

n
L l

n
0

D

9
n

the d e c r e a s i n g  of  the w o r k i n g  f o r c e  a nd  r e c a l l i n g  to  w o r k  o f  E m p l o y e e s  

so  l a i d  off ,  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  i n  the  a p p l i c a b l e  S e c t i o n  (as s h o w n  

in A p p e n d i x  " B  ) s h a l l  g o v e r n .  H o w e v e r ,  it i s  u n d e r s t o o d  a nd  a g r e e d  t h a t  

s e n i o r i t y  s h a l l  not  be a p p l i e d  in s'uch a  m a n n e r  a s  to  r e q u i r e  the C o m p a n y  

to r e t a i n  o r  r e c a l l  a n  E m p l o y e e  w h o  i s  n o t  q u a l i f i e d  to  p e r f o r m  the  job in 

q u e s t i o n .

If  a n  E m p l o y e e  w h o  w o u l d  b e  l a i d  o f f  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h i s  S e c t i o n  

s h a l l  h a v e  g r e a t e r  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  tha n,  and  s h a l l  h a v e  the  s k i l l  

a n d  a b i l i t y  to  p e r f o r m  the j o b  of , a n o t h e r  E m p l o y e e  in  a  l o w e r - r a n k e d  job 

in h i s  S e c t i o n ,  the E m p l o y e e  h a v i n g  s u c h  g r e a t e r  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  

a nd  t h e  n e c e s s a r y  s k i l l  a n d  a b i l i t y  s h a l l  b e  g i v e n  the  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  d i s p l a c e  

s u c h  o t h e r  E m p l o y e e .  A n  E m p l o y e e  so  d i s p l a c e d  s h a l l  b e  g i v e n  t h e  o p p o r ­

t u n i t y  on the  b a s i s  o f  the f o r e g o i n g  t o  d i s p l a c e  a n o t h e r  E m p l o y e e  in  t h e  s a m e  o r  

a  l o w e r - r a t e d  jo b .  A n  E m p l o y e e  w h o  d o e s  n o t  e x e r c i s e  h i s  r i g h t  u n d e r  t h i s  

S e c t i o n  to  d i s p l a c e  a n o t h e r  E m p l o y e e  m a y  b e  l a i d  of f .

S e c t i o n  H - L a y o f f  a n d  R e c a l l  of  E m p l o y e e s  w i t h  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  

S e n i o r i t y . In l a y i n g  o f f  a n d  d e m o t i n g  E m p l o y e e s  in a n y  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  (as  

s h o w n  in A p p e n d i x  " B " )  in  c o n n e c t i o n  w i t h  t h e  d e c r e a s i n g  of  t h e  w o r k  f o r c e  

a n d  r e c a l l i n g  E m p l o y e e s  s o  l a i d  off ,  l e n g t h  o f  s e r v i c e  in  s u c h  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  

s h a l l  be  g i v e n  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  a s  k  f a c t o r ,  a l o n g  w i t h  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ,  n a m e l y ,  

a b i l i t y ,  a p t i t u d e ,  p e r f o r m a n c e  a n d  p h y s i c a l  f i t n e s s .  W h e n  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  a r e  

r e l a t i v e l y  e q u a l ,  l e n g t h  o f  s e r v i c e  i n  the  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s h a l l  g o v e r n .

nl i : <

! o
-25-

• vrv.r-r ~

c 3



Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

S e c t i o n  I - N o t i c e  of  L a y o f f .  In t h e  e v e n t  of  l a y o f f s  in  a c c o r d a n c e  

w i t h  the  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  S e c t i o n s  G a n d  H o f  t h i s  A r t i c l e ,  the  C o m p a n y ,  w h e n  

i t  h a s  s u f f i c i e n t  a d v a n c e  k n o w l e d g e ,  w i l l  n o t i f y  E m p l o y e e s  w h o  a r e  to be 

l a i d  o f f  7 c a l e n d a r  d a y s  i n  a d v a n c e  of s u c h  l a y o f f .  I f  u n d e r  t h o s e  c o n d i t i o n s  

t h e  C o m p a n y  f a i l s  t o  g i v e  s u c h  n o t i f i c a t i o n ,  i t  w i l l  p a y  s u c h  E m p l o y e e s  

40 h o u r s '  p a y  a t  t h e i r  s t r a i g h t - t i m e  r a t e .

S e c t i o n  J - Job P o s t i n g . In t h e  e v e n t  of  a  v a c a n c y  i n  e i t h e r  the  

R a y o n  P l a n t  o r  N y l o n  p l a n t ,  t h e  j o b  w i l l  be  p o s t e d  f o r  b i d s  b y  E m p l o y e e s  

in  t h e  a p p r o p r i a t e  p l a n t .  W h e n  b i d s  a r e  r e c e i v e d ,  t h e  C o m p a n y ,  b e f o r e  

c o n s i d e r i n g  o t h e r  c a n d i d a t e s ,  s h a l l  g i v e  f i r s t  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  t o  E m p l o y e e s  

f r o m  t h e  S e c t i o n  in  w h i c h  the  v a c a n c y  e x i s t s  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h e i r  

S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  a n d  t h e  l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n .  L e n g t h  o f  s e r v i c e  w i t h i n  

s u c h  S e c t i o n  s h a l l  a p p l y  a s  a  d e t e r m i n i n g  f a c t o r ,  a l o n g  w i t h  o t h e r  q u a l i f i c a ­

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

f i t n e s s .  W h e n  t h e s e  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  a r e  r e l a t i v e l y  e q u a l  a m o n g  t h e  E m p l o y e e s  

b e i n g  c o n s i d e r e d ,  l e n g t h  of  s e r v i c e  s h a l l  be  t h e  c o n t r o l l i n g  f a c t o r .  E m p l o y e e s  

w i l l  o n l y  b e  c o n s i d e r e d  f o r  t r a n s f e r  t o  o t h e r  j o b s  w i t h i n  t h e  s a m e  p l a n t  in

w h i c h  t h e y  a r e  e m p l o y e d ,  e x c e p t  t h a t  in  the  f i l l i n g  o f  v a c a n c i e s  in  p e r m a n e n t

c
c r a f t  a s s i g n m e n t s  i n  t h e  N y l o n  o r  the R a y o n  P l a n t  the  p r i n c i p l e s  of  t h i s  

S e c t i o n  J  w i l l  a p p l y  a s  a m o n g  E m p l o y e e s  in  t h e  p a r t i c u l a r  c r a f t ,  p r o v i d e d ,  

h o w e v e r ,  t h a t  w o r k  r e q u i r e m e n t s  in the  N y l o n  o r  the R a y o n  P l a n t  a r e  not  

j e o p a r d i z e d ,  a n d  p r o v i d e d ,  f u r t h e r ,  t h a t  w h e n  a  v a c a n c y  o c c u r s  t h e r e  s h a l l  

be no m o r e  t h a n  one p o s t i n g  in  e a c h  p l a n t  w h e n  the  v a c a n c y  c y c l e  w i l l  be

-26-



A r t i c l e  XI - S e n i o r i t y  
C o n t i n u e d

* t* t
L i

a
o

D -

n
L i

. n

0

0

d e e m e d  to  be c o m p l e t e d .  O n c e  a c r a f t s m a n  s u c c e s s f u l l y  b i d s  to  a n o t h e r  

p l a n t ,  h e  m u s t  r e m a i n  in t h a t  p l a n t  a m i n i m u m  of  s e v e n  a n d  o n e - h a l f  

m o n t h s  b e f o r e  b e c o m i n g  e l i g i b l e  to b id  b a c k .

In o r d e r  to  a s s u r e  e v e r y  E m p l o y e e  a n  o p p o r t u n i t y  to  b e  c o n s i d e r e d  

f o r  a n y  v a c a n c y  in  h i s  S e c t i o n  d u r i n g  a n y  a b s e n c e  f r o m  w o r k ,  he  w i l l  be  

p e r m i t t e d  to  f i l e  w i t h  t h e  P e r s o n n e l  O f f i c e  a  j o b  a n d / o r  j o b s  r e q u e s t  w h i c h  

w i l l  r e m a i n  e f f e c t i v e  f o r  a  p e r i o d  of on e  y e a r .  If  he s h a l l  b e  a b s e n t  a t  a 

t i m e  w h e n  he  s h a l l  b e c o m e  e l i g i b l e  f o r  s u c h  j o b ,  the  j o b  w i l l  r e m a i n  o p e n  

u n t i l  h i s  r e t u r n .  If he  s h a l l  no t  t h e n  w a n t  t h e  jo b ,  i t  w i l l  b e  p o s t e d  in 

a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  the  a b o v e .

S e c t i o n  K  - T e m p o r a r y  A s s i g n m e n t s .  If a n  E m p l o y e e  s h a l l  be 

a s s i g n e d  f o r  a  p e r i o d  o f  f o u r  o r  m o r e  c o n s e c u t i v e  h o u r s  a t  t h e  d i r e c t i o n  of  

the  C o m p a n y  f r o m  h i s  r e g u l a r  j o b  to  a n o t h e r  j o b  w h e n  w o r k  i s  a v a i l a b l e  to  

h i m  on h i s  r e g u l a r  j o b  f o r  w h i c h  t h e  E m p l o y e e  w o u l d  o t h e r w i s e  h a v e  b e e n  

s c h e d u l e d ,  h e  s h a l l  r e c e i v e  the e s t a b l i s h e d  r a t e  o f  p a y  f o r  t h e  j o b  p e r ­

f o r m e d .  In a d d i t i o n ,  w h i l e  p e r f o r m i n g  w o r k  u n d e r  s u c h  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  

s u c h  E m p l o y e e  s h a l l  r e c e i v e  s u c h  a l l o w a n c e  a s  m a y  be r e q u i r e d  to  e q u a l  

t h e  e a r n i n g s  t h a t  h e  w o u l d  o t h e r w i s e  h a v e  r e a l i z e d .  T h e  a b o v e  s h a l l  no t  

a p p l y  w h e n  t e m p o r a r y  a s s i g n m e n t s  a r e  m a d e  t o  a v o i d  l a y o f f s .

S e c t i o n  L  - T r a i n i n g . T h e  C o m p a n y  w i l l  m a k e  e v e r y  r e a s o n a b l e  

e f f o r t  to  l e t  E m p l o y e e s  w i t h  g r e a t e r  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  o b t a i n  the  

s k i l l s  r e q u i r e d  t o  p e r f o r m  h i g h e r  r a t e d  j o b s  in  the  b a r g a i n i n g  u n it  b y  g i v i n g  

s u c h  e m p l o y e e s  f i r s t  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  w o r k  on s u c h  j o b s  d u r i n g  a n y  v a c a n c y

1
-27-



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

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

S e c t i o n  M  - T e m p o r a r y  E m p l o y e e s . N o t h i n g  in  t h i s  A r t i c l e  s h a l l  

b e  c o n s t r u e d  to  p r e v e n t  t h e  C o m p a n y  f r o m  h i r i n g  t e m p o r a r y  e m p l o y e e s  t o  

r e l i e v e  d u r i n g  v a c a t i o n s ,  i l l n e s s  o r  e m e r g e n c i e s ,  o r  to  p e r f o r m  s u c h  o t h e r  

w o r k  a s  m a y  be o u t s i d e  t h e  s c o p e  of p r o d u c t i o n  a n d  m a i n t e n a n c e .

S e c t i o n  N - T e m p o r a r y  L a y o f f s . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g  t h e  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  

S e c t i o n s  G  a n d  H of t h i s  A r t i c l e :

1 .  D u r i n g  t h e  f i r s t  48 h o u r s  of  a n y  p l a n t  s h u t d o w n ,  E m p l o y e e s  

m a y  b e  l a i d  o f f  a s  p r o d u c t i o n  r e q u i r e m e n t s  i n d i c a t e .  D u r i n g  the  f i r s t  48 h o u r s  

of  a n y  p l a n t  s t a r t - u p ,  E m p l o y e e s  w i l l  be r e c a l l e d  a c c o r d i n g  t o  t h e i r  l e n g t h

o f  s e r v i c e  i n  t h e  j o b  on t h e  s h i f t  a s  the  j o b  r e s u m e s  o p e r a t i o n ;  a n d

2. W h e n  c o n d i t i o n s  a r i s e  w h i c h  c a u s e  n o  w o r k  t o  be a v a i l a b l e

f o r  a n  E m p l o y e e  o r  E m p l o y e e s  in t h e i r  s p e c i f i c  j o b s ,  a n d  s u c h  c o n d i t i o n s  a r e

no t  e x p e c t e d  t o  c o n t i n u e  m o r e  t h a n  14 d a y s ,  l a y o f f s  m a y  be m a d e  in  a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h  s h i f t  s e n i o r i t y  i n s t e a d  o f  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  s t r i c t  a p p l i c a t i o n  of

d e p a r t m e n t a l  o r  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .  ( T h a t  i s ,  i f  a n y  E m p l o y e e  o r

E m p l o y e e s  s h a l l  b e  r e q u i r e d  to  l o s e  t i m e  u n d e r  s u c h  c o n d i t i o n s ,  t h e  l e a s t
o

s e n i o r  E m p l o y e e  o r  E m p l o y e e s  s h a l l  be  l a i d  o f f  a n d  o t h e r s  on the  s h i f t  s h a l l  

be  b a c k e d  up to  f i l l  the  j o b s  s o  v a c a t e d  f o r  w h i c h  t h e y  a r e  q u a l i f i e d .  E m p l o y e e s  

so  b a c k e d  up s h a l l  r e t a i n  t h e i r  r e g u l a r  r a t e  f o r  s u c h  14 d a y s .  ) I f  a n y  s u c h  

c o n d i t i o n  c o n t i n u e s  f o r  m o r e  t h a n  14 d a y s ,  t h e n  l a y o f f  b e y o n d  s u c h  14 d a y s  

s h a l l  be  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h e  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  S e c t i o n s  G a n d  H o f  t h i s  A r t i c l e .

Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

-28-



o
__Vjrfi... cu__

i n

:a
n

;h
. j

■Li
r~»• 1tuJ

fJ
i
n.. » LJ

m )
. i |

n

; ♦

< )
i d

**!

\ \ jlj

0
• n

Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

T h e  C o m p a n y  w i l l  c o n s i d e r  r e t a i n i n g  a f f e c t e d  E m p l o y e e s  t o  p e r f o r m  

s u c h  u s e f u l  w o r k  a s  m a y  be a v a i l a b l e ,  a nd  i f  the  a f f e c t e d  E m p l o y e e s  a r e  

s o  r e t a i n e d ,  t h e  " b a c k - u p "  p r o c e d u r e  s h a l l  n o t  a p p l y .  E m p l o y e e s  so 

r e t a i n e d  d u r i n g  the  t i m e  p r o v i d e d  w i l l  be  p a i d  t h e i r  r e g u l a r  r a t e s .  If, 

d u r i n g  t h e  14 d a y s  r e f e r r e d  t o  i n  t h i s  S e c t i o n ,  a n y  E m p l o y e e  m a y  be l a i d  

o f f  o r  r e d u c e d  b y  e r r o r  a n d  the C o m p a n y  s h a l l  c o r r e c t  s u c h  e r r o r  a s  s o o n  

a s  i t  i s  b r o u g h t  t o  i t s  a t t e n t i o n ,  t h e  C o m p a n y  w i l l  no t  b e  l i a b l e  f o r  a n y  

c l a i m  s .

S e c t i o n  O . In the a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  the p r o v i s i o n s  o f  S e c t i o n s  G a n d  H 

o f  t h i s  A r t i c l e  f o r  t h o s e  E m p l o y e e s  i d e n t i f i e d  a s  L a b o r e r s ,  J a n i t o r s ,

J a n i t o r  a nd  M e s s e n g e r s ,  a n d  C l e a n e r s ,  s u c h  E m p l o y e e s  m a y  b e  t r a n s f e r r e d  

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

S e c t i o n  P . In t h e  e v e n t  of  i m p e n d i n g  c u r t a i l m e n t  i n  a  S e c t i o n  o r

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  a t  a  t i m e  w h e n  n e w  h i r i n g s  a r e  c o n t e m p l a t e d  in  a n o t h e r

S e c t i o n  o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  i t  i s  a g r e e d  t h a t  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  f o r  t r a n s f e r  to  the

e x p a n d i n g  o p e r a t i o n  w i l l  b e  g i v e n  to  E m p l o y e e s  w h o  a r e  a b o u t  to  be

f u r l o u g h e d  b e f o r e  a n y  n e w  h i r i n g s .  I f  a  v a c a n c y  o c c u r s  i n  a n y  S e c t i o n

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  w h i c h  i s  n o t  f i l l e d  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  the f o r e g o i n g  prc
tf _

of  t h i s  A r t i c l e ,  w h i l e  E m p l o y e e s  i n  a n o t h e r  S e c t i o n  o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  a r e  on 

l a y o f f ,  s u c h  E m p l o y e e s  on l a y o f f  s h a l l  be  g i v e n  p r e f e r e n c e  o v e r  n e w  h i r e s  

in  the  f i l l i n g  o f  s u c h  v a c a n c y ,  p r o v i d e d  t h a t  s u c h  E m p l o y e e s  s h a l l  h a v e  the  

s k i l l  a n d  a b i l i t y  to  p e r f o r m  t h e  v a c a n t  j o b  a n d  p r o v i d e d ,  f u r t h e r ,  that  w h e r e  

s k i l l  a n d  a b i l i t y  a r e  r e l a t i v e l y  e q u a l ,  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  w i t h  the

o r

• o v i s i o n s

■29-



Art ic le  XI - S eniority
•Continued

C o m p a n y  s h a l l  g o v e r n .

S e c t i o n  O . At  the s i g n i n g  o f  t h i s  A g r e e m e n t ,  the p r e s e n t  P r o d u c t i o n  

I n s p e c t o r  j o b  w i l l  be  l o c a t e d  b e t w e e n  the U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 j o b  a n d  the  W a s h  

M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r  jo b .  T h e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  of  t h o s e  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r s  

p r i o r  to  O c t o b e r  26, 196 7,  w i l l  r e m a i n  f r o z e n  f o r  the p u r p o s e  o f  m a i n t a i n i n g  t h e i r  

r e l a t i v i t y  a m o n g  t h e m s e l v e s  w i t h i n  the  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r  j o b .  W h e n  b i d d i n g  on 

a  h i g h e r  job in  the S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  in c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  

E m p l o y e e s ,  S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l ,  but w h e n  b i d d i n g  on s u c h  

h i g h e r  j o b  in  c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r s  ( P r i o r  t o  O c t o b e r  26, 

1967),  t h e i r  f r o z e n  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l .

O n c e  one of  t h e s e  f o r m e r  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r s  m o v e s  p e r m a n e n t l y  to  a n o t h e r  job 

in  the  S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  a n d  b e c o m e s  a f f e c t e d  t h r o u g h  l a y o f f ,  h e  w i l l  m o v e  d o w n  the  

l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  h i s  S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .  H o w e v e r ,  

r a t h e r  t h a n  b u m p i n g  i n t o  the U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 j o b ,  he  w i l l  r e t u r n  to  the  P r o d u c t i o n  

I n s p e c t o r  jo b ,  t h e r e b y  u t i l i z i n g  h i s  P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .

S e c t i o n  R . A t  the  s i g n i n g  o f  t h i s  A g r e e m e n t ,  the F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  jo b  

w i l l  be  l o c a t e d  b e t w e e n  the P r e s s  R o l l  j o b  a n d  the F o r k  L i f t  job in  the R a y o n  

V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  l i n e  of  p r o g r e s s i o n .  T h e  L a b o r  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  o f  t h o s e  

f o r m e r  L a b o r e r s  w i t h  L a b o r  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  p r i o r  to O c t o b e r  26, 1967, w i l l  

r e m a i n  f r o z e n  f o r  the  p u r p o s e  o f  m a i n t a i n i n g  t h e i r  r e l a t i v i t y  a m o n g  t h e m s e l v e s  

w i t h i n  the  F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  j o b .  W h e n  b i d d i n g  on a  h i g h e r  job in  the 

V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  in c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  E m p l o y e e s ,

V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l ,  but  w h e n  b i d d i n g  on s u c h  h i g h e r  job

-30-



Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

i n  c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  f o r m e r  L a b o r e r s  ( p r i o r  to  O c t o b e r  26, 1967) 

t h e i r  f r o z e n  L a b o r  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l .  O n c e  a  F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  

( f o r m e r  s u c h  L a b o r e r )  m o v e s  p e r m a n e n t l y  to  a  h i g h e r  jo b  in  the  V i s c o s e  

S e c t i o n  a n d  b e c o m e s  a f f e c t e d  t h r o u g h  l a y o f f ,  h e  w i l l  m o v e  d o w n  t h e  l i n e  

of  p r o g r e s s i o n  in a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  h i s  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .  H o w e v e r ,  

r a t h e r  t h a n  b u m p i n g  i n t o  the  F o r k  L i f t  jo b ,  h e  w i l l  r e m a i n  in  the  F i l t e r  

S t r i p p e r  jo b ,  t h e r e b y  u t i l i z i n g  h i s  f r o z e n  L a b o r  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .

S e c t i o n  S . A t  the  s i g n i n g  o 'f ' this .  A g r e e m e n t ,  t h e  p r e s e n t  F o r k  L i f t  

O p e r a t o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  i n  t h e  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  o f  the R a y o n  P l a n t  w i l l  

b e c o m e  a  j o b  b e l o w  t h e  F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  j o b  in  t h e  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  l i n e  of  

p r o g r e s s i o n .

T h e  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  o f  t h e  p r e s e n t  t w o  F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r s

w i l l  be  f r o z e n  f o r  t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  m a i n t a i n i n g  t h e i r  r e l a t i v i t y  w i t h i n  t h i s

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  a n d  t h e i r  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  b e g i n  on the  d a t e  of

t h e  s i g n i n g  of  the c o n t r a c t .  W h e n  b i d d i n g  on a  h i g h e r  j o b  in  t h e  V i s c o s e

S e c t i o n  i n  c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  E m p l o y e e s ,  V i s c o s e

S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l ,  bu t  w h e n  b i d d i n g  on s u c h  h i g h e r  j o b  in

c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r  f o r m e r  F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r s ,  t h e i r  p r e s e n t  f r o z e n

C
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  w i l l  p r e v a i l .  O n c e  a  p r e s e n t  

F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r  m o v e s  p e r m a n e n t l y  f r o m  h i s  F o r k  L i f t  j o b  to a  h i g h e r  

j o b  i n  t h e  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  a n d  b e c o m e s  a f f e c t e d  t h r o u g h  l a y o f f ,  he  w i l l  

m o v e  d o w n  t h e  l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  h i s  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n

-31-



Art ic le  XI - Seniority
Continued

s e n i o r i t y .  H o w e v e r ,  r a t h e r  t h a n  b u m p i n g  i n t o  the F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  jo b ,  

h e  w i l l  r e t u r n  to  the F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r  jo b ,  t h e r e b y  u t i l i z i n g  h i s  F o r k  

L i f t  O p e r a t o r  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .

-32-



nJ
n
Li

in

n
u

nL)
n

A P P E N D I X  " A "  - W A G E  P L A N

0

-59-



A P P E N D I X  " A "

u

n
0
a
o

ni j

s
Lj

n< i
L i

i iU

U

o

o
w a g e  p l a n

G E N E R A L  R U L E S  A N D  R E G U L A T I O N S  F O R  T H E  A P P L I C A T I O N  O F  T H E  
W A G E  P L A N  IN A P P E N D I X  " A " .

1 .  A  s h i f t  d i f f e r e n t i a l  of  14£ p e r  h o u r  i s  p a i d  f o r  a l l  h o u r s  w o r k e d  on 
r o t a t i n g  s h i f t s ,  a nd  s u c h  14£ d i f f e r e n t i a l  i s  i n c l u d e d  in  the  r a t e s  l i s t e d  
h e r e i n  f o r  a l l  j o b s  d e s i g n a t e d  b y  (S). S h o u l d  a n  E m p l o y e e  on a  r o t a t i n g  
s h i f t  be  t r a n s f e r r e d  to  a  d a y  j o b  e q u i v a l e n t  to  the  s h i f t  jo b ,  h i s  r a t e  w i l l  
be  r e d u c e d  b y  14^ p e r  h o u r .

2 .  A  s h i f t  d i f f e r e n t i a l  o f  8£ p e r  h o u r  i s  p a i d  f o r  a l l  h o u r s  w o r k e d  on the  
s e c o n d  s h i f t  b y  E m p l o y e e s  p e r m a n e n t l y  a s s i g n e d  to  s u c h  s e c o n d  sh i f t .

3. A  p r e m i u m  of  10£ p e r  h o u r  w i l l  be  p a i d  to E m p l o y e e s  f o r  b u r n i n g  l e a d ,  
w h e n  s o  e n g a g e d .

4.  E m p l o y e e s  on t h e  s t e p  r a t e s  w i l l  be  m o v e d  to  the n e x t  h i g h e r  s t e p  r a t e  
o n l y  on A p r i l  26, 1971,  O c t o b e r  25, 1971,  A p r i l  24, 1 97 2,  O c t o b e r  30, 1972,  
a n d  A p r i l  30, 1973.  A n  E m p l o y e e  e n t e r i n ' '  at  the s t a r t i n g  r a t e  w i t h i n  the 
f i r s t  t h r e e  m o n t h s  f o l l o w i n g  a n  i n c r e a s e  d a t e  w i l l  a d v a n c e  t o  the  n e x t  
s u c c e e d i n g  h i g h e r  r a t e  on tin *3 n e x t  s t o p  i n c  1*03.80 d3.ts f  o l i o  w i n  p h i s  s >"v̂ p^oy — 
m e n t .  An  E m p l o y e e  e n t e r i n g  a t  the  s t a r t i n g  r a t e  w i t h i n  the  l a s t  t h r e e  
m o n t h s  of  a  s i x - m o n t h  i n c r e a s e  p e r i o d  w i l l  no t  a d v a n c e  to  the n e x t  s u c c e e d i n g  
h i g h e r  r a t e  on the  n e x t  i n c r e a s e  d a te ,  but  w i l l  r e c e i v e  t h i s  h i g h e r  r a t e  a t  t h e  
e n d  o f  t h e  f o l l o w i n g  s i x - m o n t h  p e r i o d .  T h e r e a f t e r ,  s t e p  i n c r e a s e s  w i l l  be  
m a d e  a t  s i x  m o n t h  i n t e r v a l s ,  in a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  the i n d i v i d u a l  r a t e  s c h e d u l e s .

-*• 1 r  a n s f  e r  s . E x c e p t  f o r  S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r s  a n d  the E n t r y  Job,  a n  E m p l o y e e
t r a n s f e r r i n g  f r o m  a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o r  jo b  in  a  S e c t i o n  i n t o  t h e  e n t r y  j o b  o f  
a n o t h e r  S e c t i o n  s h a l l  r e m a i n  at  h i s  e x i s t i n g  r a t e  u n t i l  the  n e x t  A p r i l  o r  
O c t o b e r  i n c r e a s e  d a t e ,  a t  w h i c h  t i m e  he w i l l  p r o g r e s s  to  the  n e x t  h i g h e r  r a t e  
in  t h e  p r o g r e s s i o n  s c h e d u l e  f o r  that  e n t r y  jo b ,  p r o v i d e d  t h a t  s u c h  a n  E m p l o y e e  
s h a l l  n o t  in  a n y  e v e n t  r e c e i v e  m o r e  t h a n  the  j o b  r a t e  f o r  h i s  n e w  j o b .

Li

n* .<
a

n
0
nu - 6 0 -



i
• iu

1 n
u

m
M

■ n
; u

1—!
L

D

■i
'

jI0
I

\ G
n

. H1 ; iu

M A I N T E N A N C E  C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

c_



- - i ' r j .

n
u

J

nl i
Li

n

A p p e n d i x  " A "  - W a g e  P l a n  
C o n t i n u e d

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N  R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

M a i n t e n a n c e

i

1970

• i 1t
1970 ij 1971 j

il
1

1 97 2 • 1973

r
O l d  j 
R a t e  !

' t\ i

10/26 ij 4/ 26  ! 10/25 j 4 / 2 4  |

1

10/30 i 4/3 0 j

j

0
B

A i r .  C o n a .  M e c h .  * 
B o i l e r  O p e r a t o r *  
C a r d  G r i n d e r *  
C a r p e n t e r *  
E l e c t r i c i a n *  
I n s t r u m e n t  M e c h .  * 
Ind.  V e h i c l e  M e c h .  * 
L o o m  F i x e r *  
M a c h i n i s t *  
M i l l w r i g h t *  
P a i n t e r *
P i p e f i t t e r *  
S h e e t m e t a l  M e c h .  * 
T o o l  M a i n t .  M e c h .  *

T

0
O
B

R
A
T
E

!
•

3. 72

1

3. 92

i
!
ii

l

1i
4. 02 j

1

.

4 . 1 2

i

’■‘S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s 3 . 7 2  

3. 59 
3. 37

3 . 9 2  
3. 7 9 ^  
3. 57 ""

3. 92 
g F 7 9  ^

4. 02
j 3 . 8 9  ^  

3. 6 7 ^

4. 02 
3 . 8 9 ^ ” 

J^ 3 .  6 7 - "

11 * !
ij

^ - 4 .  12 j 4. 12  
3. 99 j!3. 99 

' ^ 3 .  7 7 ^ i ] 3 .  77

1!

- 61 -



u
r~l

Li
Appendix " A 11 - Wage P l a n
Continued

io C L A S S I F I C A T I O N R A T E  O F  P A Y $ / H O U R

la M a i n t e n a n c e 1970 1970 ! 1971
•

197 2
|
i 1973

O ld _ j -
»'

1 R a t e 10/26 ! 4/ 26 10/25 4 / 2 4 10/30 4/30■■ n
u J

O B r i e  k m  a s o n * J O B -  - 3. 92 4. 02 4 .  12

*:n
B R A T E

L

U ’•‘I n c u m b e n t •
•i * 2 .  39 3. 57 3. 89 4. 12

n
: f 1

I

1: i ! J
n

! J

- 6 1 ( a ) -



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
.Continued

-
C L A S S I F I C A T I O N  R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R  '

1/aintenance
1 j

1970 ! 1970- 1971
!

1972 1973
Old 

i Rate
1

10/26 | 4/26 10/25 4/24
1

10/30 ! 4/30

J
O
B

Oiler*
J
o!
B

A
T
E

2. 78

i

2. 98 3. 08 3. 18

’•“Starting rate and 
progression rates

2. 78 
2. 62 
2. 47 
2. 32 
2. 18

2.98
2. 82--j
2. 67T 
2. 52-1 
2. 38"j

2. 98 
' 2. 82" 
f - 2.67" 

2.52" 
r  2.38"
i

J > . 08 
^2. 92"7
^2. 77 "1 
^2. 62 " 
" 2 ^ 4 8 ^

| ! 
^3. 08 1 3.18 |
'*’*2. 9Z"| 3. 02"T- ^2. 77 12. 8 7 ^
"̂ *2. 62"! 2. 72 [
-"1. 48-"|2. 58"j

| 1

U3- IS 
L.3. 02 
I z .  87 
1̂ 2. 72 
2. 58

e

6Z-



G0

u

nf |
u

ni i
lJ

i i •u

n  
i 1 
LJ

R A Y O N  P L A N T

✓7a



Appendix " A "  - Wage PkiiS**
Continued

S E C T I O N  I1 A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

Engineerin'! Department !
11970 i

I
197 0 j 1971 |

ii
1972 ‘ ■ !| 1973<

1
Stores Section - Rayon

Old j 
Rate 1

1
10/26 | 1

4/26| 10/25 ! 4/24 10/30 4/30

J
O
B

Order Clerk 
Receiving Clerk 
Stores Inv. Clerk 
Storeroom Clerk*

J i
0
B
R
A
T
E

!
3. 15 
3. 15 
2. 87 
2. 78 I

3.35 
3, 35 
3. 07 
2. 98

3. 45 
3. 45 
3. 17 
3. 08

1!

3.55 !
3.55 
3.27 
3. 18

1|

^Starting rate and . 
progression rates

___________________________

2. 78 
2. 62 
2. 47 
2. 32 
2. 18

2.98 
2. 82 "i 
2. 67 "i 
2. 52 ] 
2. 28' !

1
^.2. 98
!_.2. 82'
L- 2. 67 
_2. 52'
p 2. 28'

^_3. 08
_2. 92

2 77u-- * ' ' _2, 62
' 2.38'-'

^,3. 08 
V  2.92^
J-2 - 1 1  
] 2. 62"

2. 38^
1

^3. 18^
_3. 02 ^
^  2. 87^, 

2.72 
"^2. 48-'

!
1 3 . 18
J-3. 02
i-2. 87 
U -  72 
2. 48



! j ( ! f

Q
j h; ! 1

■ lJ

Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / K O U R
J

E n g i n e e r i n g :  D e p a r t m e n t

!
1970 !

|
1970 !

•

1971
;i

1972 111 97 3

|| o i a  j
S t o r e s  - R a y o n  P l a n t  |! R a t e  1

j
10/26 ' 4 /2 6 10/25

(

4/24/| 10/30:! 4/3 0

J
O
B

S a l v a g e  M a n *

J 1

° |  
B  !

r | 
a  !
T  | 
E

1

3. 10 3. 30

_1

l
3. 40

li

3. 50

1
i
1

* i
1

ii

^ 'S tart in g  R a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s

3. 10 
2. 94 
2. 78 
2. 63 
2. 49

3. 30 
3. 1 4 ' "  
2. 9 8 " "  
2. 83""  
2. 6 9 ""

U - 30.
i 3. 1 4
r  2 - 9 8 "
X  2 . 8 3 "  
r  2. 6 9 "
I

3. 40
1^3. 2 4 " "  
f 3. 0 8 " "  
^  2. 9 3 " "  
" 2 .  79-""

|
[ ,  3. 40__ 
L 3. 2 4 "

L 3 - 0 8 '
r  2 . 9 3 "  
j " 2. 79"-

i
_3. 50

- 3 . 3 4 C
„  3. 18 

3. 0 3 "  
" 2 .  8 9 "

t-3.  50 
j- 3. 34 
L-3. 18
\ ?>. 03 
j 2. 89

0
nt {
LJ

•: j
Li

I n
. Li

nii j 
A J

n

'nI

in
n

-64



Appendix “ A "
Continued

- W a g e  P l a n

1 —------------------ -----— --------------------------------- -—-------------- ----------------------

S E C T I O N  R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R
!
I

R a y o n  P l a n t 1970 1970 !
; j 

1971
j

1972
r

1973
!

L a b o r  S e c t i o n  1
O ld
R a t e

i
!

10/26 i
1
! 4 /2 6

1
!

10/2 5 ! 4 / 2 4
||

1 0 / 3 0 ’j 4/ 3 0

J
O
B

L a b o r e r

J a n i t o r *

J
O
B

R
A
T
E

1

2. 39 

2. 18

2. 59 

2. 38
i
!i

I

i
i

i

2.  69 

2. 48 . •1»

i
i

2. 79 

2 . 5 8

l

i

1l
j

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s

2. 18 
2. 09 
2. 01 
1 . 9 3  
1 . 8 6

2. 38 
2. 29 "  
2. 2 1 " " ’ 
2. 1 3 " "  
2. 0 6 " "

i I |
| 2.  38 j_2. 48
T ^ 2 .  2 9 " f ^ 2 .  39 1 
| 2. 21  j 2. 31  j 

1 3 "j 2. 23 "■
T ’*’2. 0 6 0  2. 1 6 - ^

l l

1 i] ^ 2 .  4 8 _j^2. 58
_U2. 3 9 ^ U 2 .  49^; 
j ^ 2 .  31 1 2 . 4 l "  
{ 2 . 2 3  \ 2.33"^ 
" " 2 .  1 6 . ^ 2 .  26^ 

1

^2.  58 
1- 2. 49 
, U -  41 
! >  33
| 2. 26 
ii

C

-65 -



A p p e n d i x  " A " Wacre P la n '

C o n t i n u e d

-  6 6  -



.  *w.. r f ' . J - J v j i . . .—

in
'i Li

in Appendix "A" - Wage Plan
Continued

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N ’ R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - S/HOTTP

Production Dept.
i I
! 1970 1 1970 1971 1 1972 1973

Traffic Section-Rayon
! Old i 
! Rate | 10/26 1 4/26

1
10/25 !

|
! 4/24 j!

10/30 I 4/30
J
O
B

Fork Lift Operator*

J
O
B
R
A
T
E

| 1 

i 2. 73

1

2.93

!

3. 03 3. 13

* Starting rate and , 
progression rates

2. 73 
2. 58 
2. 44 
2. 31 
2. 18

2. 93 
2. 7 S W
2. 64 4 
2. 51 4 
2. 38-j

_______ L

2. 93 
" l .  78' 

' 2. 64'

HLIL

3. 03 
^2. 88""
45. 7 4 ^  

2. 61
"'f. 48--

_ 3. 03 
4  2 . 8 S'"
_2. 74""

2. 61" 
""2. 48-

^3. 13 
^2. 98 ^
_,2.84 n
2. 7 l"" 

58--'

,3. 13
J,2. 98
(2. 84 
j 2. 71 
f2. 58 
!

n■i 1JU
\

n

1H

m
n
j

n

n
Li

n■J
!. S

Li

0

■in
in
u

i

n“J
-67-

-■ ■ j.- .T -.r - '  ... ■ •: .



nLmJ

!o
4
■ i-i i.Q
fl

■ i O

if
i

i ni: <

n

iLi

Appendix " A "  - Wage P l an^
Continued

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / K O U R

P r o d u c t i o n  D e p t . 1970 1970 1971 1972 1 1973

R a y o n  P l a n t
O l d
R a t e 10/26 4 /2 6 10/25 4 / 2 4 10/30 4/3 0

J
O
B

W a r e h o u s e m a n *
J O B
R A T E

:

2. 73 2 . 9 3

. 1

3. 03 3. 13

:

i

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s

i
i

2.  73 
2. 58 
2.  37 
2.  23 
2. 09

2 . 9 3  
2. 7 8 - "  
2. 57 -"  
2. 43 
2. 2 9 -

11
1 2 . 9 3  
j 2 . 7 8 '  
'^*2. 5 7 '  

2 .  4 3 '  
'^*2. 2 9 '

3. 03 
^ 2 .  8 S "  
^ 2 .  6 7 "  
" 2 .  5 3 "  
" I f .  3 9 -

11
3. 03 

f  2. 8S 
P" 2 . 6 7 ^  
r 2. 5 3 "  
r 2 . 3 9 -

„ 3 . - 1 3  
^ • 9 8 ^  
J . .  7 7 "  
^2 .  6 3 "  
"2*. 4 9 -

|
[_3. 13 
( , 2 . 9 8  
!^2. 77 

2. 63 
' 2 .  49

> i ;• i

n

n

t-

- 6 8 -



A p p e n d i x  " A "  - W a g e  P l a n  
-C o n t i n u e d

c

-69-



td 
O

Appendix " A "  - Wage P la n
Continued

S E C T I O N

T e x t i l e  D e p a r t m e n t 1970

T e x t i l e  S e c t i o n - R a y o n

S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  (S) 

J u n i o r  O p e r a t o r  (S)*

J
O
B
R
A
T
E

I n c u m b e n t :
S p e c i a l  O p e r a t o r  (S)

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s  (S)

O ld
R a t e

R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

1970 1971

3.07 

2. 28

10/26 4/26 10/25

1972

3. 27

2. 48

3. 13

2. 28 
2. 19 
2 . 10 
2. 02 
1.94

3. 33

2.48 
2. 39- 
2. 30 
2 . 22 - 

2 . 14-

2 . 48 
”2. 39 
'2. 30 
*2. 22' 
'2. 14-

4/24

3. 37

2. 58

3. 43

2. 58 
'2 .  49 
"2. 40' 
'2. 32
’27*24.

i" 2. 5S 
2. 49' 
2. 40' 
2. 32' 
2. 24-

10/30

3. 47

2. 68

3. 53

2. 68 
2. 59’ 
2 . 50" 
2. 42 
2. 34-

1973

: 4/30

2. 68 
2.. 5 9 
2. 50 
2. 42 
2. 34

-70-



-x  . w :.A V

n

n

n

i t
u

lJ

A p p e n d i x  " A "  - W a g e  P l a n  
C o n t i n u e d

!. r~i.] Li

-71-



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

S E C T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - S / H O U R

Rayon Production Dept. | 1970 1 1970 1971 1972 1973
Old i

Spinning Section Rate ! 10/26 4/26 10/25 4/24 10/30 4/30

J Senior Operator (S)
J
0 3. 31 , 51 3. 61 3. 71

■ ■■■■■— ..

O Recovery Opr. #1 (S) B 3. 30 3. 50 3. 60 3. 70
B Recovery Opr. #2 (S) 3. 30 3.5 0 3. 60 3. 70

M a k e - U p  Opr. (S) R 3.09 3. 29 3. 39 3. 49
Utility Opr. #1 (S) A 3. 08 3. 2S 3. 33 3. 48
Jet R o o m  Attd. (S) T 3. 07 3.27 3. 37 3. 47
Spinner &t Cutter (S) E i 3. 06 3. 26 3. 36 3.'46
Utility Opr. #2 (S) 3. 00 3. 20 3. 30 3. 40
Dryer- Opr. (S) ! 2. 99 3. 19- 3. 29 3. 39
Bale Checker (S) i 2. 98 3. 18 3. 28 3. 38
W a s h  Mach. Opr. (S) i 2. 97 3. 17 3. 27 3. 37
Prod. Inspector (S) 2. 90 3. 10 3. 20 3. 30
Utility Opr. #3 (S) * 2. 90 3. 10 3. 20 3. 30
Fork Lift Opr. (S)* 2. 89 3.09 3. 19 3. 29
Bale Press Opr. (S)* 2. 87 3.07 3. 17 3. 27

2. 87 3.07 3.07 3. 17 ^3. 17 ^3. 27 _3. 27
2. 69 2.89"-L'a 89"'1 2j 9 9 — ^ 2. 99' [3. 09
2. 51 2. 71— ' ""’2. 71 - 2. 81" 2. 81" ',2.9f^[ 2. 91

^Starting rate and 2. 34 2. 54 — r""ll. 5 4 ^ ■"2. 64-"| 2. 6 4 ^ 2. 74 | 2. 74
progression rates (S) 2. 17 2. 37-- ^2. 37— "if. 47-" ' 2. 47-— "2. 57"| "2. 57

-72-



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

S E C T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - S / H O U R

P r o d u c t i o n  D e p t .  - R a y o n 1970 ii| 1970 1971 197 2 1973

V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n
O l d
R a t e 10/26

S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  (S) 
C h u r n  O p e r a t o r  (S) 
U t i l i t y  O p r .  #1 (S) 
C a v e  O p r .  - S r .  (S) 

- J r .  (S)
U t i l i t y  O p .  # 2 - S r .  (S)' 

- J r .  (ST
P u l p  F e e d e r  (S) 
P r e s s  R o l l  Op. (S) 
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  (S) * 
F o r k  L i f t  O p r .  * *

4/ 26
J

O
B

R  
A  
T  
E  i

3. 30 
3. 30 
3. 05 
3. 10 
3. 05 
2. 92 
2. 87 
2. 87 
2. 87 
2. 58 
2. 73

^ 'S tart in g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s  
' f o r  F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  (S)

2. 58 
2. 43 
2. 28 
2. 1 4  
2. 00

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s  
f o r  F o r k  L i f t  O p r .

2.  73 
2. 58 
2. 44 
2. 31 
2. 18

10/25 l! 4 / 2 4
3. 50 3. 60 | 3. 70
3. 50 3. 60 | 3. 70
3. 25 3. 35

| .
3. 45

3. 30 3. 40 j 3. 50
3. 25 3. 35

1
3. 45

3. 12 3. 22 3. 32
3 . 0 7 3. 17 3. .27
3. 07 3. 17 3. 27
3. 07 3. 17 3. 27
2. 78 2. 88 2. 98
2. 93 3. 03 3. 13

i
2 . 7 8  | 2. 78 J . .  8S |_ B . 8 8 ^ 2 .  98
2. 63 'T j ’ 2. 63 __2. 7 3 ^ j ! ^2 * 73 " f .  2. 83
2. 48 j 2. 48 2. 58 "fr ^ 2 .  58 2. 68
2. 34 j" 2. 34 J 2. 4 4 - " ' ' 2 .  4 4 - ^ '  2. 54
2. 20 |I f .  2 0 - '' — 2. 3 0 - - ■ ^2. 30 — 2. 40'

10/30 |i 4/3 0

J l  2. 98 
Jj 2. 83

It 2. 68
J j 2 .  54 
1 | 2 .  40

J L 3
98 ' l l  3. 9S

c

-73-



1

: n
j u

n
N Y L O N  P L A N T



i n
: u
1
j< n

o
n
LJ

Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

S E C T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

N v l o n  T e c h n i c a l  D e p t . 1970

I

1970 1971

i,II
1 97 2 j! 1973

Q u a l i t y  C o n t r o l  S e c t i o n
O l d
R a t e 10./26 4 /2 6 10/25 4 / 2 4 10/30 ! 4/3 0

J
O
3

L a b  T e s t e r  (S)*
J O B
R A T E

2. 22 2. 42 2. 52 2. 62 1
i
1t

------ -------------

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a nd  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s  (S)

2. 22 
2. 10 
1 . 9 8  
1 . 8 6  
1 . 7 4

2. 42 
2. 30 
2. 18 -  
2 . 0 6 ^  
1 . 9 4 - -

2. 42 
' ' " 2 .  30 "

1"";2 . i s "  
' " 2 .  0 6 "  
' " L  94 "

2, 52 i  

' J L . 40 A  
2. 28 

" 2 .  16 "" 
" 2 .  04^ "

^ 2 .  52 
| 2 . 4 0 "
f * 2 .  2 8 "  
r  8. i 6 "
" 2 .  0 4 ^

^ 2 , 6 2  

3 -  5 0 ^  
3 -  3 S ^
"L .  2 6 * "
" L  1 4 / -

j
1 2. 62 
j.2. 50 

3 -  38!i 2. 26
|2. 1 4

*
n; i
u

n
u

0

u

: n
i Li

»
l !

( r~\

I Li
j n
1 u
1
i
-j ni Li -74-



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

S E C T I O N ________________ '________ R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

Nylon Production Dept. 1970 1970
i

1971 1972 1973
j Old - 1

Textile Section 1 Rate 10/26 4/26 10/25 4/24 10/30 4/30

J Inspector (S) J O B 2. 27 2.47 2. 57 2. 67
O B e a m e r  (S) 2. 22 2. 42 2. 52 2. 62
3 Drawtwist Op. (S)* R A T E 2. 17 2. 37 2. 47 2. 57

2. 17 2. 37 2. 37 2. 47 „2. 47 „2. 5-7 ,2. 57
2. 06 2.26-^ 2.26^ "*2. 36 , 2. 36^ ,2.46 ,.̂ 2. 46
1.95 2. 15"'P - 15;r 2. 04

f j L . 2 5 ^ ^  2. 25'"^2. 35" 2. 35
^Starting rate and 1.84 2. 04 - ^2. 14 "]^2 . 1 4 ^ " 2. 2 4 ^ ^2. 24
progression rates (S) 1.74 1.94- f""..94"'"if. 04-"j""2. 04"-"l. 14"^'"2. 14

-75-



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

S E C T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - S / H O U R

Nylon Production Dent. S 1970 1970 i
?!

1971 1972 1973

Soinning Section
O ld
Rate 10/26 I 4/26 1 10/251! 4/24 j 10/30 j 4/30

J
o
3

Line of Progression 
No. 1:
Spinning Opr. (S) 
Take-Up Opr. (S) 
Creel Opr. (S) 
Utility Opr. (S) *

J O B  ! 
RATE) 2. 53 

2. 46 
2. 39 
2. 32

2. 73 
2. 66 
2.59 
2. 52

2. 83 
2. 76 
2. 69 
2. 62

I 1

2. 93 
2. 86 
2.79 
2. 72

2. 32 2. 52 2. 52 2. 62 2. 62
1

2. 72 i ,2. 72
2. 17 2. 37--J""2. 37 ""^2. 47 "1 I 2. 47 I 2. 57 2. 57

• 2. 02 2. 22 - ■TJL 22^ 2..32"fl2. 32" ' 2.42" '2. 42
^'Starting rate and •' 1.88

V00oevi "  2.08" 2. 18"| 2. 18^^2. 2 S " 1JL 28
progression rates (S) 1.74 1.94- ■"'l.94- " f .  04 J  

_ _ _ _ _ _
-^"2. 04- "2. 1 4—' 2. 14

0

-76-



Appendix " A "  - Wage Plan
Continued

n
: u

I

:nLj
H



Appendix nA '1
Continued

W a g e  P l a n

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N

N y l o n  P l a n t 1970

R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

1972 1973
O ld
R a t e 10/26 4/26 10/25 4/24 10/30 4/30

J
O
3

M a i d *
J O B
R A T E

2. 18 2. 48 2. 58

^ S t a r t i n g  r a t e  a n d  
p r o g r e s s i o n  r a t e s

2. 18 
2. 03 
1. 88 
1.74 
1 . 60

2. 48 
2. 33' 
2. 18' 
2. 04' 
1 . 90'

2 . 58 
2 . 43' 

28' 
"2 . 14' 
"2.00'

2 . 58 
f2. 43 
^2. 28 
'2. 14 
"2. 00

C

-78-



Aobendix " A "  - Wace Plan
Continued

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N R A T E S  O F  P A Y  - $ / H O U R

Nylon Plant 1970 1970 1971 11972
1
1973

- Old Ij
Rate !| 10/26 4/26 10/25 4/24

i
, ! 10/30 1 4/30

J
O
3

Entry Job.(S) * J O B
R A T E 1.74 1.74 1. 84 1.94

:

^Starting rate and 
progression rates (S)

1.94 
1.89 
1.84 
1.79 
1.74

1.94
1.89-
1.84-1

1.94
" 1 . 8 9 "
" 1 . 8 4 '

2. 04 
1. 99 " 

"l. 9 4 "  
' l . 89 ' 
"T. 8 4 -

^ 2 .  04
j__1.99^
1 1.94" 
j 1.89" 
•"1.84-

i
_2-. 14 ! 
^2. 09 1 
_Z. 04"|
"1.99"
"1.94-

.2. 14 
,2. 09 
[2 . 04 
1 . 9 9  
"T. 94

%n

;n
u -79-



A P P E N D I X  " B "

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S  A N D  S E C T I O N S  A N D  L I N E S  
O F  P R O G R E S S I O N

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S :  —  -
A i r  C o n d i t i o n i n g  M e c h a n i c  
B o i l e r  O p e r a t o r  
B r i e  k m  a s o n  
C a r d  G r i n d e r  

. C a r p e n t e r  
E l e c t r i c i a n  
E n t r y  Job 
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r  
I n d u s t r i a l  V e h i c l e  M e c h a n i c  
I n s t r u m e n t  M e c h a n i c  
L o o m  F i x e r  
M a c h i n i s t  
M a i d
M i l l w r i g h t
O i l e r
P a i n t e r
P i p e f i t t e r
S a l v a g e  M a n
S h e e t m e t ’a l  M e c h a n i c
S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r
T o o l  M a i n t e n a n c e  M e c h a n i c
W a r e h o u s e m a n

S E C T I O N S  A N D  L I N E S  O F  P R O G R E S S I O N :  
S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  ( R a y o n  P l a n t ) :  

S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  
A ,  R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #1 

R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #2 
M a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 
Jet  R o o m  A t t e n d a n t  
S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r ' #2 
D r y e r  O p e r a t o r  
B a l e  C h e c k e r  
W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r  
P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r  
B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r



^Appendix "B "  - Continued
Classil' ications and Sections and Lines of P rog ress ion

V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  ( R a y o n  P l a n t ) :  
^  S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  

C h u r n  O p e r a t o r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 
C a v e  O p e r a t o r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  # 2  
P u l p  F e e d e r  
P r e s s  R o l l  O p e r a t o r  
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r  
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r

L a b o r  S e c t i o n :

C h e m i c a l  L a b o r a t o r y  S e c t i o n  ( R a y o n  P l a n t ) :  
a  L a b  T e s t e r  -  C o l o r a y  
I L a b  T e s t e r  - P h y s i c a l  T e s t i n g

S t o r e s  S e c t i o n :

A*
O r d e r  C l e r k  
R e c e i v i n g  C l e r k
S t o r e s  I n v e n t o r y  C l e r k  
S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k

T e x t i l e  W e a v i n g  S e c t i o n :  
A  S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  
| J u n i o r  O p e r a t o r

T e x t i l e  T e x t i l e  S e c t i o n :  
S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r  

i J u n i o r  O p e r a t o r

T e x t i l e  S e c t i o n  ( N y l o n  P l a n t ) :
I n s p e c t o r  
B e a m  e r
D r a w t w i s t  O p e r a t o r

A i r  s t r i p p i n g  
D o f f  C r e w
P a t r o l  R e p a i r  R e l i e f  C r e w

-81-



Appendix " B "  - Continue
Classi i icanons and Sections and Lines of P rogress ion :

Spinning; S e c t i o n  ( N y lo n  P l a n t )  
N o .  1

A S p i n n e r
T a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r  
C r e e l  O p e r a t o r  
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r

- s e e  D i a g r a m  b e l o w :
N o ,  2

/ ^ F i n i s h  O p e r a t o r  
Je t  M a k e - U p  
U t i l i t y  M a n

H o p p e r  C h a r g e r  
O t h e r  A s s i g n m e n t s

Q u a l i t y  C o n t r o l  S e c t i o n  (N y lo n  P l a n t ) : 
L a b  T e s t e r s  •

-82-



VvL iT~

October 13, 1968

MERGING OF LA B O R E R  JOB IN T O  SUNDRY O P E R A T O R  C LA S S IF IC A T IO N

In accordance with the request of a number of L a b o re rs  and Janitors,
the Company is  m erg in g  the Laborer  job (except that part which is p e r fo rm ed  
by Janitors and day L a b o re rs  in the Engineer ing Department) into the Sundry 
Operator classification, effective Monday morning, October 21, 1968.

1. A l l  L abo re rs  and Janitors w i l l  be g iven the opportunity to become 
Sundry Operators as o f  the above date.

2. The number e l ig ib le  to be re c la s s i f ie d  on that date w i l l  be the
number of L a b o re rs  and Janitors on that date, less  the number of.Engineering 
day L a b o re rs  and Janitors.

3. Those to be r e c la s s i f ie d  w i l l  be assigned in  accordance with their 
Labor Section sen ior ity .

(a) Labor  Section Sen iority  f ro zen  as o f  the above 
date and start accumulating Sundry Operator 
c lass i f ica t ion  sen ior ity  on this same date.

(b) L a b o re r  or Janitor rate o f  pay and continue to 
p ro g re s s  in rate o f pay as though they w ere  
s t i l l  in that job until they move into a new job.
At this t im e, such an em ployee  "sha l l  rem ain
at his ex is t ing rate until the next A p r i l  or  October 
increase  date, at which time he w i l l  p ro g re ss  to 
the next h igher rate  in the p rog re ss ion  schedule 
fo r  that entry job, p rov ided  that such an employee 
shall not.in any event r e c e iv e  m ore  than the job 
rate for his new job. "

5. A f t e r  the above date, these fo rm e r  Lab o re rs  or  Janitors as
Sundry Operators, when bidding'to another job in competit ion  with other 
Sundry Operators, plant sen ior ity  w il l  p reva i l ,  but when bidding on such job 
in competit ion with other fo rm e r  L a b o re rs  or  Janitors, their  prev ious Labor 
Section sen ior ity  w i l l  p reva i l .

6. Once one o f these fo rm e r  L a b o re rs  or  Janitors m oves  permanently
to another job and becom es a ffec ted  through layoff, he w i l l  m ove down the line 
of p rog ress ion  in accordance with his section sen ior ity .  However, during the 
term  o f this contract, p r io r  to being laid o f f  he w i l l  return to the Sundry Operator 
c lass if ica t ion , thereby u t il iz ing  his f ro zen  Labor  Section sen iority .

4. Those re c la s s i f ie d  w i l l  keep their:

DCStmra



w  ^

Industrial Relations Department 
Courtaulds North A m e r ic a  Inc. .

(Check One)

I do want to be considered  fo r  t ran s fe r  to the Sundry Operator 
c lass if ica t ion . ------------

I  do not want to-be cons idered  fo r  trans fe r  to the Sundry O pera­
tor c lass if ica t ion .

(Date) (C lock  No. ) (Signature o f-Em ployee )



H AN D ,  A R E N D A L L ,  B E D S O L E ,  G R E A V E S  &  J O H N S T O N
L A W Y E R S

CHAS.  C. H A N D  
C. B. A R E N D A L L ,  JR.
T. M A S S E Y  B E O S O L E  
T H O M A S  G. G R E A V E S ,  JR.  
V IV IA N  G. J O H N S T O N ,  JR .  
P A U L  W. B R O C K  
A L E X  F. L A N K F O R O ,  ICE 
E D M U N D  R. C A N N O N  
LY M AN  F. H O  L L A N O ,  JR.
J. T H O M A S  H IN E S ,  JR.  

D O N A L D  F. P IE R C E  
L O U IS  E. B R A S W E L L

3 0 T H  F L O O R  F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  B A N K  B U I L D I N G

MOBILE, ALABAMA
3 6 6 0 1

M A I L I N G  A O O R E S S :  
P. O.  D R A W E R  C 

O R  P. O. B O X  123

C A B L E  A D D R E S S  

H A B

T E L E P H O N  E 

4-32 -  5511

i. P O R T E R  B R O CK ,  JR.  
IA R W E L L  E. C O A L E ,  JR. July 14, 1975

S T E P H E N  G. C R A W F O R O  
J E R R Y  A.  M CD O W ELL  
W, R A M S E Y  M CKIN NE Y,  JR.  
L A R R Y  U. S IM S  
A.  CLAY R A N K I N , H I  
C O W A R D  A.  H YN  OM AN , J R. 
M IC H A E L  D. K N IG H T  
G. H A M P  U 2 Z E L L E ,  H I  
B C N J AM C N T. R O W E  
G. L . LE ATH  E R B U  RY,  J R. 

W IL LIAM  C. R O E O D E R ,  JR.  
OAVI O A.  B A G W E L L

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
Chief Judge
United States District Court 
Southern District of Alabama 
214 U. S. Court House and Custom House 
Mobile, Alabama 36602
Re: Freddie Eaton, etc. v. Courtaulds North America Inc.,

Civil Action No. 6648-71; and Harry L. Austin vs. 
Courtaulds North America Inc,, Civil Action No. 6768-71

Dear Judge Pittman:
As Your Honor will recall, Mr. Blacksher, on behalf 

of certain members of the Affected Class in the above cases, 
filed a Motion for Declaration of Rights and Enforcement of 
Decree in this Court on March 24, 1975, the purpose of which 
was to seek a construction from this Court of an .alleged 
amMgpi tv in— the.,provisions -of Article-VII- -D. 2 . Subsequently, 
Mr. Blacksher and,-I agreed, with Your Honor's concurrence, 
that it would be {preferable to await the Opinion and Award 
of the Permanent Arbitrator/)' Enclosed is a copy of that 
Opinion and Award dated July 7, 1975, upholding the position 
of Courtaulds. I hope that this will be dispositive o£
Mr. Blacksher's motion, inasmuch as ArticleQX^of the_ 
SeTtlfehient 'Agreement provides that disputes such as the one 
here present "shall be referred for resolution to the 
grievance process provided by the Collective Bargaining

U. S. L'iSliiiul 
MOBILE, ALA.



o 0

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 14, 1975 
Page 2

Agreement ... ." This was the process followed in this 
present matter.

Yours very truly,

For the Firm

PWB.lh
cc: James U. Blacksher, Esq.



ARBITRATION AWARD

In the Matter of
COURTAULDS NORTH AMERICA INC.
MOBILE, ALABAMA
and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA 
AFL-CIO-CLC and Local Union 1465

FOR THE COMPANY: Paul W. Brock, Esq.
Donald C. Smith, Director of Industrial Relations

FOR THE UNION: Walter W. Rainey, International Representa­tive
Thomas Wayne Stiles, Local President 

IMPARTIAL ARBITRATOR: Carl A. Warns, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky

By terms of the contract between Courtaulds North America 
Inc., hereinafter called "the Company," and Textile Workers 
Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC and Local Union 1465, hereinafter 
called "the Union," there is provided a grievance procedure 
including arbitration. Accordingly, the parties selected Carl 
A. Warns, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky a3 Impartial Arbitrator.
A hearing was held in Mobile, Alabama on May 12, 1975. Equal 
opportunity was given the parties for the preparation and pre­
sentation of evidence, examination and cross examination of 
witnesses and oral argument. The Company filed a po3t hearing 
brief; the Union waived its right to file a brief.

< 5 0  Ot



2

OPINION
There are two grievances to be reviewed by the Arbitrator. 

The first, Complaint No. 74-112, was filed by Mr. Bred Eaton and 
Mr.Willie Sullivan. Both Mr. Eaton and Mr. Sullivan contend 
that "we have been denied our equal rights in demoting employees 
which has already been won in the court order..." In other 
words, these grievants contend they have been deprived of their 
"Court Seniority" rights granted in a Settlement Agreement 
arising out of a Title VII dispute. The other grievance is 
Complaint No. 74—113, filed by Mr. Tillman Thicklin who contends 
that he "wants job back that he left from on January of 373 to 
use Court Seniority for bumping back to Viscose Section..."
The basis of Mr. Thicklin's complaint i3 the same as in the 
prior grievance above and that is that the Company has misin­
terpreted Mr. Thicklin's rights contained in the Settlement 
Agreement following the Title VII litigation.

The following provisions from the Settlement Agreement 
are of immediate relevance:

"VII.
COURT SENIORITY

A. The Affected Class will consist of those 
black employees hired into the I»abor Section prior
to October 21, 1968, and who are named on the attached Exhibit One.

B. For the period of its duration and solely 
for its application as hereafter set forth, Court



J 3
Seniority shall be seniority in addition to that 
existing under the current Collective Bargaining Agree­
ment of October 26, 1S7Q, or any subsequent collective 
bargaining agreement, shall apply only for the purpose 
set forth in this article, and shall be defined as 
length of continuous service with Courtaulds. Con­
tinuous service shall be deemed to be or to have been 
broken by any event so described in Article XI, Section 
"C", page 19', of said October 26, 1970 Collective 
Bargaining Agreement*“

"VII.
COURT SENIORITY

D. 1. When members of the Affected Class compete 
with each other or with employees not of the Affected 
Class as to/layoff, demotion and recall, Court Senior!ty 
shall be the applicable seniority for such purposes 
and may be utilized by Affected Class employees and 
any other employees so competing. Court Seniority 
for the purposes of demotion, layoff and recall shall 
not be lost by failure either to bid or to accept an 
entry level job as is set forth in preceding Paragraph C .

2. Subject to the express exception in Para­
graph III.(F) above, an Affected Class employee op 
any other person can only use hla Court in
case of demotion, layoff or recall from his position 
in the line of progression in which he is as of the 
date of this Sattleasent Agreement downward to the 
entry job in that same 11ns of progression,. Rp can 
at no time use Court Seniority to jump from section 
to section or fresa department to department."

"IX.
SETTLEMENT OP DISPUTES

Any dispute or disagreement arising under this 
Settlement Agreement involving matters governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement as it may be modified by this Settlement Agreement shall be referred for 
yQsol^tlon to the Grievance process provided by thg> 
Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at fchw H m A  
in question. Provided, however, nothing heroin shall 
bo Interpreted as enlarging or expandingtfea legal or 
contractual obligations of the unions to process grievances."



No useful purpose can be served by reciting the history 
of the Title VII, 1964 Civil Rights Act action, which led to 
the settlement under review. It is sufficient to state that 
by his Order of January 11, 1973, the Honorable Virgil Pittman, 
United States District Judge, approved the Settlement Agreement. 
The issue new in arbitration is limited to the application of 
the "Court Seniority" as such seniority applies to the claims 
in the grievances now before the Arbitrator. *

Several preliminary comments are required in erder that 
the role of the Arbitrator be understood. Traditionally, when 
the employees of a Company have selected a Union to speak for 
them concerning wages, hours and terms and conditions of employ­
ment and have negotiated a collective agreement with their 
employer, in most cases a procedure for the settlement and 
final resolution of all disputes concerning the interpretation 
and application of the contract between the employer and employees 
through their Union is negotiated. As the last step in this 
procedure, the parties select an outsider, an Arbitrator, who 
will hoar the evidence and arguments and make a decision con­
cerning the claim. In the case of this employer and Union,
I am the Permanent 'Arbitrator hearing all'- issues involved in 
their collective relationship as such issues relate to the col­
lective agreement, and have served in this capacity for several 
years. Issues have arisen in the past concerning seniority righto 
and these differences have been reviewed in the light of the con­
tractually negotiated seniority rights. A resolution of tie



grievances now in arbitration adds a further dimension to the
/

contractually established criteria regarding seniority rights, 
the Settlement Agreement, which find3 its genesis in Public Law.
This Settlement Agreement as provided above in Article IX states 
that any disputes or disagreements arising out of the interpre­
tation of the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the Grievance 
Procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Such Grievance 
Procedure includes arbitration as the final step in the pro­
cedure .

As a former Affirmative Action Officer of the University 
of Louisville, I am familiar with the Civil Rights legislation, 
administrative rulings and Court interpretations. Since the 
passage of that legislation whenever issues have arisen in the 
past concerning a charge that an employer has denied the grievant 
his or her rights because of race or sex, I have used Public 
Law sources as an appropriate benchmark in the interpretation 
of broad contract language that the employer will not deny nego­
tiated rights because of race or sex. In the present dispute, 
the issue of discrimination has been carefully reviewed and 
adjudicatod by public authorities and has been finalized in 
the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Pittman. My task
therefore is not to look behind the word3 of the Settlement -_
Agreement and substitute my judgment for that of superior public 
authority as to the proper application of Public Law to the facts 
and contract terms which ware before the Court for review in 
the several Civil Actions which led to the Settlement Agreement



of January 11, 1973. I would, however, consider it within my 
authority as Arbitrator if I find an applicable provision of the 
Settlement Agreement to be subject to more than one reasonable 
interpretation to utilise statutory language and relevant inter­
pretations as guidelines leading toward a specific application 
of the Agreement.

The essential facts are not in dispute. On January 11,
1973, Mr. Sullivan was Utility Operator No. 3. This job was 
three levels up the line off progression in be Spinning Section 
in the Rayon Plant. Mr. Eaton held the same job in the same 
section. Mr. Thicklin was a Filter Stripper in the Viscose 
Section of the Rayon Plant, one job up the line of progression. 
Additionally, by applying the Court Seniority given by the 
Settlement Agreement, Mr. Sullivan advanced to the job of Bale 
Checker. He later returned as a result of reduction in forces 
by the contractual application of Section Seniority back to hi3 
base position of Utility Operator No. 3 {now Utility Operator 
No. 2). Mr. Eaton utilized his Court Seniority and advanced to 
Bale Checker. He was later returned to the Utility No. 3 position 
as a result of Section Seniority. Mr. Thicklin used his Court 
Seniority to promote to Utility Operator No. 2, and then trans­
ferred to Traffic as a Forklift Operator in another section.
After a passage of time in accordance with the contract, Mr. 
Tto&eklin lost his original Section Seniority.



7

All three grlevants assert the sane position. They contend 
that the previously limited Section Seniority negotiated in the 
contract has been modified by judicial ruling to the extent that 
the grievants and all other members of the protected "affected 
class" now possess plant-wide seniority, or as it is called 
"Court Seniority" which permitted them on layoff from the posi­
tions from which they had advanced as a result of the Court 
Seniority to utilize that same court or plant-wide seniority in 
competition with all others. The Company on the other hand, 
asserts that by the express language of Article VII.D. 2. of the 
Settlement Agreement, the grievants are entitled toise Court 
Seniority in the case of demotion, layoff or recall downward 
from their respective positions held on January 11, 1973 in their 
lines of progression. This means then that as to Grievants 
Sullivan and Eaton their demotions following reduction in forces 
proceeded according to contractual seniority until they reached 
their base position which was Utility Operator No. 3 at which 
time under the provisions of Article VII.D. 2. they became entitled 
to use Court Seniority with reference to further demotion.

As to Mr. Thicklin, it is the position of the Company
»that when Mr. Thicklin transferred out of his section, he lost 

his Court Seniority for purposes of demotion, layoff or recall.
After careful study, it ir> my conclusion that the language 

of Article T2IoD.2. supports the position taken by the Company.
The language of that^section of the Settlement Agreement states



rr\
' J

\)J

■■M

'?>

f*
A

0 ,

«=arly and with 
o ut: amt>iguitv

° “ y  -  “ • • " " * • ■  « —

;  ; r „  r  * -  . . —°* the date of °f pro9reasion ln shlr
*" that name line f e°ent „  to

K°rd3 *ln - M ®  he 13 M  of ‘ °f P^ « 3 l o „ . .  rhQ Qp
raent" Cl»a , °* the dat® of f-»w P ativlimit m d  ^  *U  Settlement Agroa_

th° Cl-®atance0 of “  °f °»«t Seniority
«—  « r e  emitted th!n 2 ’“ °" *  « « - •  «  L

purpooe» Ueted vould have *  S« ^ l t y  for

-  r °  a— • w

ulliyan nor Mr. fct>. had

off . /  Saalori^  to compete vlth „  “ «rt
ut rather had to 1J- <thers at'the timeaw CO wait untl? 4.U t2Ja® of

Possessed «as of 1 ^eyr reached their kH the date of oh,* ™ i r  base job
ut-^ is in g  the c™ &. 3 ^^^ensent Aoreo^eni0rity# d e m e n t -  before

ThS last 3e«tence of Artll ^icklia,s 0„« - or Article vii. D> ,
■con * V M C a - »  states that »„ ’ POTeS <* Mr.ca° at no tine „ at 80 AffScted c, _
section or from Seni-tty to 2 "  C U S ° 6"Pl0y0e
Xhlchlln.n trl, ant *“ ̂ «ment.. haT *°transfer to the Traffic - reault of Mr.
rights after It±c Section baa«^

r tta Period of time „„ , 00 “ "tract™ “  "Pacified In th„
° tte “ "tract, he



9

lc3t his Viscose Section seniority when ha acquired Traffic 
Section seniority. This left him in the position where he was 
not able to utilize the Court Seniority which attached to and 
related specifically to the job which he possessed on the date 
of the Settlement Agreement, Pilter Stripper in the Viscose 
Section.

As is customary in arbitration cases, both parties sub­
mitted as exhibits in the arbitration hearing all related case 
papers, that is, the grievance and the various responses of 
the Company in the earlier stops of the Grievance Procedure in 
writing. It is apparent from reading the grievance itself, the 
minutes of the third step hearing, and the Company's answers, 
that the Union on behalf of all three griovants, fully explored 
all facets of the dispute mid requested the Company to present 
evidence as to how others similarly situated had been treated 
in the practical day-to-day application of the grievance settle­
ment. In those cases in which demotion or reduction in force 
had occurred, the record supports that these grlevants had been 
treated on the same basis as all others similarly situated. After 
such full investigation of the case it became apparent that the 
Company's interpretation and pattern of administration regarding 
identical or similar demotions w&s in accordance with the intent 
of the Settlement uodarafea&S&ng-s- All three grievants were present 
at the arbitration hearing and graciously answered questions posed 
by the Arbitrator. I was convinced that they believed in good

3 ^



faith that they were entitled to use their Court Seniority 
at any time'when demoted from the higher positions which their 
Court Seniority and ability entitled them to receive, rather 
than from the base position which they possessed at the time 
of the Settlement Agreement. However, it is my conclusion 
that the position taken by the Company in the denial of this 
grievance was correct and on that basis the grievances are 
denied.



A W A R D

Based upon the foregoing reasoning and analysis, Grievance 
No. 74-112, involving Fred Eaton and Willie Sullivan, and 
Grievance No. 74-113, involving Tillman Thicklin, are denied 
for the reasons stated in the Opinion.

— -=ACarl A. Warns, Jr.
Impartial Arbitrator

July 7, 1975 
Louisville, Kentucky



o  o

CRAW FORD, BLACKSHER &  KENN EDY
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W  

1 4 0 7  D A V I S  A V E N U E  

M O B I L E ,  A L A B A M A  3 6 6 0 3

V E R N O N  Z . C R A W F O R D  

J A M E S  U .  B L A C K S H E R  

C A I N  J. K E N N E D Y

T E L E P H O N E  4 3 2 - 1 4 9 1  

A R E A  C O D E  ( 2 0 9 )

M I C H A E L  A .  F I G U R E S  

W .  C L I N T O N  B R O W N ,  J R .

July 24, 1975 u. s. DISTRICT JUDGE 
MOBILE, ALA.

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
United States District Judge 
United States District Court Post Office Box 465 
Mobile, Alabama 36601
Re: Eaton, et al. v. Courtaulds North America Inc.Civil Action No. 6648-71-P and

Austin, et al. v. Courtaulds North America Inc. Civil Action No. 6768-71-P
Dear Judge Pittman:
On July 16, 1975, I received a copy of Paul Brock's letter, 
dated July 14, 1975, with its enclosed copy of the arbitration award against Freddie Eaton and Willie Sullivan and in favor of Courtaulds.
I am writing to inform Your Honor, that contrary to the suggestion in Mr. Brock1s letter, the arbitrator's decision does not dispose 
of the dispute set out in our motion for Declaration of Rights and 
Enforcement of the Decree filed on or about March 24, 1975. The language of Article IX of the consent decree, referred to by Mr. Brock, which calls for the referral of seniority disputes to the 
labor contract grievance process does no more than state the partys' agreement that those less formal processes should first be exhausted 
and restates the principle of law announced in Alexander v, Gardner- Denver Company, 415 U.S. 987, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1019, (1974):

Legislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to 
accord parallel or overlapping remedies 
against discrimination. ... And, in general, submission of a claim to one 
forum does not preclude a later sub­mission to another.



0n ✓

July 24, 1975
Honorable Virgil Pittman
Page 2.

This particular dispute is particularly appropriate for review by 
the Court, because only Your Honor can finally interpret and 
clarify the language of the Court's own decrees.

So far as I can tell, the arbitrator's opinion correctly states 
the relevant facts and quotes the relevant provisions of the consent 
decree. On page six (6) of the opinion, the arbitrator notes that 
"[t]he essential facts are not in dispute." The arbitrator states 
that he did not have occasion to .pass on the question in light of 
the underlying~federal-discrimination--law-because he found no ambiguity 
in the-" operative words of” the consent decree. But, if Your Honor 
compares our motion for Declaration of Rights with the arbitrator's 
opinion, you_will see that the arbitrator focused on the wrong words.
In paragraph D.2. of Section VII of the consent decree, the 
arbitrator says that "the words 'in which he is as of the date of 
this Settlement Agreement' are not ambiguous" Op. at p.8. We agree 
that the quoted phrase is not ambiguous; rather, the question is 
whether that phrase modifies within the sentence the noun, "position" 
or the noun "line of progression". This oversight is what makes the 
arbitrator's opinion fundamentally erroneous and its result non­
sensical .

I sav the result is nonsensical, because the Company's construction 
of~ the consenFdecree language effectively eliminates all Court 
seniority protection against demotion of the affected class. Affected 
class members did not need Court seniority protection against demotion 
from the jobs they occupied in various lines of progression on the 
effective date of the consent decree. Since they had reached those 
jobs by use of section seniority, there were no non-affected class 
members on the same level who had more section seniority; rather, 
all such non-affected class members were in jobs higher in the line 
of progression than those occupied by the affected class members.
That, obviously, was the whole purpose of providing affected class 
members company seniority.
Paragraph D.l. of Section VII of the Settlement Agreement, which must 
be read with paragraph D.2., uses great emphasis to establish and 
protect against loss of Court seniority for demotion purposes; the 
right to use Court seniority for promotion purposes could be waived, 
but could not be waived for demotion purposes. Why would plaintiffs 
have insisted on such strong language and protection of Court 
seniority rights in demotion situations if paragraph D.2. rendered 
Court seniority for demotion an empty letter?



July 24, 1975
Honorable Virgil Pittman
Page 3.

It is clear, rather, that paragraph D.2. was inserted to limit the use of Court seniority to only one line of progression and to 
prevent class members from "jump[ing] from department to department." 
What has happened is that the Company has capitalized on the ambiguity in the preceding sentence of paragraph D.2. to read out of the 
Settlement Agreement altogether the use by affected class members of their Court seniority to avoid demotions.
There can be no serious dispute that the way the Company is construing 
the aforegoing language of the Settlement Agreement directly contradicts the "rightful place" theory enunciated by the Fifth Circuit. United 
States v. Local 189, 301 F.Supp. 906 (E.D. La. 1969), aff'd 416 F.2d 
980, 988 (5th Cir. 1969), and the other cases cited on page three 
of plaintiffs' motion make this conflict plain. Accordingly, the Company's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement conflicts with 
every other consent decree of this nature approved by this Court, 
including Fluker v. Local 265 and 940 6 EPD, 8807 (S.D. Ala. 1972)(The "Jackson Memorandum") -t Bumpers v. National Gypsum Company.Civil Action No. 7843-73-P (DlFember 18, 1974).---  ------- —
I realize that, since the consent decree in this case was a settlement 
agreement, Your Honor must look initially to the language of the 
agreement itself. As I have argued in the preceding paragraphs, I think that language plainly undercuts the position taken by the 
Company in this matter. Notwithstanding that, the law required under­signed counsel and the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement as 
being in compliance with federal law. I am not arguing that by way of compromise plaintiffs could not have given up some of the rights 
which the "rightful place" formula gives them; but, in that event, 
it would have been my duty, as counsel for an entire class of alleged discriminatees, to inform Your Honor of that variance from the judicially approved remedial structure so that you could have decided 
whether it was fair and equitable for the represented parties to 
give up those rights for the class. The reason I did not so inform you of such a waiver is because none of the lawyers for plaintiffs 
ever contemplated the interpretation the Company has now read 
into paragraph D.2. of Section VII. I would represent to Your Honor that neither the defendant Company nor the defendant Union were 
misled in any of our settlement negotiations concerning our intentions 
about the use of Court seniority for avoiding demotion. This point was made with great emphasis and, we thought, with great clarity by plaintiffs' attorneys during settlement negotiations.
So the question Jxe£ore Your—Honor—lrs--4«zhether_ the Company can, through a simple exercise of pettifoggery, take.advantage of the drafting ambiguity in the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court to surprise ~the plaintiffs and arhipye an advantage that is



July 24, 1975
Honorable Virgil Pittman
Page 4.

undisputedly contrary to Title VII remedial law. I agree with the 
arbitrator that the operative facts in this issue-are nob in dispute 
and that n̂ .. additional evidence will be needed. Therefore, I have 
agreed with Mr. Brork to submit this matter to Your Honor for a 
decision on the briers alone. It is my turtner understanding that 
The Union defendants will not ask for oral argument or additional 
evidence either. In agreeing to waive our right to oral argument,
I appeal to Your Honor to give us the chance to explain any questions 
you may have about these confusing circumstances and about the 
respective positions of the parties concerning them. I cannot 
emphasize too much the importance of the outcome of this decision 
to the affected class at Courtaulds. In this time of economic 
decline and reduction in force, the arbitrator's determination, if 
left to stand, will literally take away practically all of the 
seniority protection plaintiffs thought they had obtained through 
the settlement of this case.
Very respectfully,

CRAWFORD, BLACKSHER & KENNEDY

JUB:bm

cc: Paul Brock, Esquire
John C. Falkenberry, Esquire 
Otto Simon, Esquire 
0. Peter Sherwood, Esquire 
Clerk, U.S. District Court 
Freddie Eaton 
Willie Sullivan



o

H AN D ,  A R E N D A L L ,  B E D S O L E ,  G R E A V E S  & J O H N S T O N

CHAS.  C. H A N D  
C. B. A R E N D A L L ,  JR.
T. M A S S E Y  B E D S O L E  
T H O M A S  O. G R E A V E S ,  JR .  
V IV IA N  G. J O H N S T O N ,  JR .  
PAUL  W. B R O C K  
A L E X  F. L A N K F O R O . I H  
E D M U N D  R. C A N N O N  
L YM A N  F. H O L L A N O ,  JR.
J. T H O M A S  H IN E S ,  JR.  
D O N A L D  F. P IE R C E  
L O U IS  E. B R A S W E L L  
H A R O L D  O. P A R K M A N  
G. P O R T E R  BR O C K ,  JR.  
H A R W E L L  C. CO A L E ,  JR. 
S T E P H E N  G. C R A W F O R D  
J E R R Y  A.  M CQ OW EL L  
W. R A M S E Y  MC KI NN EY,  JR .  
L A R R Y  U. S IM S  
A.  CL A Y  R AN  K I N, H I  
E D W A R D  A.  H Y N O M A N ,  JR.  
M IC H A E L  O. K N IG H T  
G. H A M P  U Z Z E L L E ,  XU 
B E N J A M E N  T. RO WE  
G. L .  LEATH E R B U R Y ,  JR.  
W IL L IA M  C. R O E D O E R ,  JR.  
OAVIO A.  B A G W E L L

L A W Y  E R S

3 0 T H  F L O O R  F I R S T  N A T I O N A L  B A N K  B U I L D I N G

MOBILE, ALABAMA
3 6 6 0 1

M A I L I N G  a d d r e s s : 
P. O.  D R A W E R  C  

O R  P. O. B O X  123

C A B L E  A D D R E S S  

H A B
T E L E P H O N E  

4 3 2  - 5 5 1 1  

A R E A  C O D E  2 0 5

July 24, 1975

Honorable Virgil Pittman
Chief Judge
U. S. District Court
Southern District of Alabama
U. S. Court House and Custom House
Mobile, Alabama

Re: Freddie Eaton, etc. vs. Courtaulds North America Inc.,
Civil Action No. 6648-71; and Harry L. Austin vs. 
Courtaulds North America Inc., Civil Action No. 
6768-71; Motion for Declaration of Rights and En­
forcement of Decree, filed by plaintiffs on March 
25, 1975_________ _______ _ _ _

Dear Judge Pittman:

The parties have agreed to submit the above motion on 
briefs.

As Your Honor knows, on May 10, 1971, Civil Action No. 
6648-71-P, Freddie Eaton, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Courtaulds 
North America Inc., et al., Defendants, was filed in the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Alabama. It was a class action, based on Title VII of the 
1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging racial discrimination by 
Courtaulds in its various employment practices, including 
hiring, promoting, lay-off, recall and discharge. The 
action was brought on behalf of all black employees at 
Courtaulds. A somewhat similar action was later filed styled 
Harry L. Austin vs. Courtaulds North America Inc., Civil 
Action No. 6768-71-P, which was consolidated with Eaton. The 
plaintiffs were represented by J. U. Blacksher, Esq., of Mobile 
and by William Robinson, Esq., of the NAACP Legal Fund in 
New York. The Defendant Unions were represented by Messrs.
Otto Simon, Esq., of Mobile and Benjamen Erdreich, Esq., of 
Birmingham, and John Morse, Esq., of New York, and I had the 
pleasure of representing Courtaulds. Following extensive



Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 24, 1975 
Page 2

discovery and settlement negotiations which continued daily 
and lasted for a number of weeks, and in which both counsel 
and parties participated, a Settlement Agreement was reached 
on December 4, 1972. Article VII D.2. of that agreement 
provides as follows:

"Subject to the express exception in Paragraph III.(F) 
above, an Affected Class employee or any other person 
can only use his Court Seniority in case of demotion, 
lay-off or recall from his position in the line of 
progression in which he is as of the date of this 
Settlement Agreement downward to the entry job in 
that same line of progression. He can at no time 
use Court Seniority to jump from section to section 
or from department to department." (Emphasis added)

While Paragraph III.(F) is a stated exception to the above 
paragraph, none of the grievants whose grievances led to 
this motion are affected by it. They are Freddie Eaton 
and Willie Sullivan, Grievance No. 74-112 (Exhibit 1), 
and Tillman Thicklin, Grievance No. 74-113 (Exhibit 2).

Article VII.E. states this:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the pro­
visions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 
October 26, 1970, for as long as it is in force, and 
thereafter, the provisions of any future collective 
bargaining agreement which may be in force from time 
to time, shall apply and prevail in all instances 
unless expressly modified by this Settlement Agreement."
The parties provided in Article IX. that any disputes or 

disagreements arising out of the interpretation of the Settlement 
Agreement would be resolved by the Grievance Procedures of the 
Collective Bargaining Agreement:

"Any dispute or disagreement arising under this Settlement 
Agreement involving matters governed by the Collective 
Bargaining Agreement as it may be modified by this Set­
tlement Agreement shall be referred for resolution to 
the grievance process provided by the Collective Bar­
gaining Agreement in effect at the time in question. 
Provided, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted 
as enlarging or expanding the legal or contractual 
obligations of the unions to process grievances."



Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 24, 1975 
Page 3

As the court knows from my earlier letter of July 14 
and from the enclosed Arbitration Award, all three grievances 
were arbitrated at length, with both verbal and documentary 
evidence being taken, and a decision rendered in favor of 
Courtaulds. This should be dispositive of the matter.

Attached to the Settlement Agreement is a list of the 
members of the Affected Class, which includes the three 
grievants. As such members, they acquired Court Seniority 
as described in the Settlement Agreement and as discussed 
at the arbitration hearing.

By Order of January 11, 1973, this court approved the 
Settlement Agreement and specified that all issues raised by 
the complaints and all issues which might have been raised 
by the complaints were adjudicated and determined. After 
this, and on June 15, 1973, Your Honor issued an Order on 
Method of Distributing Back Pay to the Plaintiff Class 
Members, to which was attached a schedule setting forth the 
method of calculation of the back pay to be awarded to each 
black employee at Courtaulds. Your Honor will note that 
Tillman Thicklin received $1627.28, based on the calculation 
that he had served out of his "rightful place" for 225 months; 
that Freddie Eaton received $1471.54, based upon the calcula­
tion that he had served out of his "rightful place" for 196 
months and that Willie Sullivan received $838.96, based upon 
the calculation that he had served out of his "rightful place" 
for 116 months. In other words, it was clearly the inten­
tion of the Settlement Agreement that, as of December 4, 1972, 
confirmed on January 11, 1973, all members of the Affected Class 
were being compensated for their time out of such "rightful 
places" by monetary payment.

I
|
;
i

\

On January 11, 1973, the date of the court order, Willie 
Sullivan was Utility Operator #3, which, as Your Honor can see 
from Exhibit 3, the 1970 Contract, was three jobs up the line 
of progression in the Spinning Section in the Rayon Plant 
(Utility Operator #3 is shown as Utility Operator #2 on the 
1973 contract, Exhibit 4), and Freddie Eaton also held the 
same job in the same section. Tillman Thicklin was a Filter 
Stripper in the Viscose Section of the Rayon Plant, which 
is one job up the line of progression. The positions of each 
of the grievants is further shown on Exhibit 5, a list of those 
employees having Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973.
Please note that the then job or position of each individual 
is specified. The reason for listing the position of each

t



/

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 24, 1975 
Page 4
employee is because that was his "base" or "rightful place" 
insofar as Court Seniority is concerned. Otherwise, there 
would have been no need to have specified the particular position of each man in each line of progression.

Similarly, the expressed purpose of Article VII.D.2. was that, in the event of demotion, lay-off or recall, an Affected 
Class Employee could only use his Court Seniority for protection 
downward from "his position" in the line of progression as of 
December 4, 1972 (or January 11, 1973), and that, if he bid and obtained promotion about that position upward and was then demoted back down to such position, under the provisions of 
Article III.E., Section Seniority under the Collective Bar­gaining Agreement would apply to such demotion. See Article XI, Sections G. and H., of the 1973 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

As is evidenced by Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, the Personnel Records or Service Records of the grievants, the following transpired: Willie Sullivan was Utility Operator #3 in the Spinning Section 
at the time of the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, by applying 
the Court Seniority which he was given by that agreement, he advanced to the job of Bail Checker. He was then demoted by the 
application of Section Seniority back down to his "base" position of Utility Operator #3 (now Utility Operator #2), at which time, 
under the provisions of Article VII.D.2., he became entitled to 
use his Court Seniority with reference to further demotion.

Freddie Eaton was in the Utility Operator #3 position on the 
date of the Settlement Agreement and, by bidding with his Court Seniority, advanced to the position of Bail Checker. He was then 
demoted back to the Utility #3 position by virtue of Section 
Seniority, where he picked up his Court Seniority. He has since 
advanced backed to the Bail Checker position.

Tillman Thicklin was a Filter Stripper on the date of the 
Settlement Agreement, used his Court Seniority to advance to Utility Operator #2, and then transferred to Traffic as a Fork 
Lift Operator, whereupon,because of such transfer out of his section, he lost his Court Seniority for purposes of demotion, 
lay-off or recall. No serious contention has been made to the 
contrary.

The position taken by the grievants is that, notwithstanding the language of Article VII.D.2., which specifies that they are 
entitled to use Court Seniority in the case of demotion, lay-off



J

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 24, 1975 Page 5

or recall downward from their respective positions on December 4, 
1972, only in their lines of progression, they should have been allowed to use such seniority from the highest positions they 
ever obtained in such lines. Had this been the intent of the 
parties to the agreement, the Settlement Agreement would simply 
have omitted from Article VII.D.2. the words " . . .  from his position in the line of progression in which he is as of the date of this Settlement Agreement", so that it would have read as follows:

Subject to the express exception in Paragraph III.(F) above, an Affected Class employee or any other person can only use his Court Seniority in ease of demotion, 
lay-off or recall downward to the entry job in that same 
line of progression. He can at no time use Court 
Seniority to jump from section to section or from de­
partment to department.
However, this was not done, and, if the language referring 

to "his position" is to be given any meaning whatsoever, it is the meaning contended for by the Company and by the Union and 
as applied in Step Four of the Grievance Procedures here in­
volved. See page 40 of Exhibit 4.

The understanding of the parties to a contract and the in­terpretation given to such contract by the parties has univer­
sally been relevant evidence in matters involving contract construction. At the arbitration hearing, Messrs. Don Smith of 
Courtaulds, Walter Rainey of the International Textile Workers Union of America and Hestle Salter and Wes Covington of the Local Textile Workers Union of America all testified that they 
participated at length in the settlement negotiations and that it was their intention and understanding, as expressed by the language here under consideration, that Affected Class employees 
would be protected in the positions they held as of the date of the Settlement Agreement by Gourt Seniority in the event of* demotion, lay-off or recall within the lines of progression they 
were in as of that date, but that, as to demotion from higher jobs in the line to which they might have thereafter advanced, Section Seniority was to be the applicable criterion. This was 
a part of the consideration for which each of the grievants was 
paid substantial sums of money in connection with the conclusion 
of the settlement.

Of course, while not here involved, Your Honor should note 
that Article XI, Section J., A. would entitle any demoted 
employee to return to his previously held highest job in the 
line of progression without the necessity of bidding his way back up the line into such job. That section provides, in part, 
this:

3 / cU o



o )

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
July 24, 1975 Page 6

’’Once an employee becomes an Affected Employee, such vacancy shall be filled by the same employee prior to any such vacancy being posted."
The verbal testimony at the arbitration was clear that both 

the Company and the Union have consistently applied Article VII.D.2. in the manner in which it was applied to the three 
grievants, and it is respectfully sumitted that, based upon 
the rather clear language of the Settlement Agreement itself, upon the Arbitration Award, and upon the intention and under­
standing of the parties, the interpretation sought by the grievants should be denied.

For the Firm
PWB.lh
cc: All Counsel



Pr » o i i m 4 Farm N*_ SI A GO ITAU LD S Noi TH A M E R I ^  i N a
' O LeMoyne Plant

COM PLA  FN-T F O R M
■B

Complaint Number 7 4 - 1 1 2

Date Submitted to Step Three: 

Disposition:

D e c e m b e r  2 7 ,  1974
Dateof Hearing on Complaint:

R a y o n  S p i n n i n g
Department or Section

D e c e m b e r  12, 197 4

_  , „  January  21, 1975Date of Disposition:___________ '

T h e  G r i e v a n t s  h a v e  t h e  i m p r e s s i o n  tha t  a t  t h e  t i m e  t h e y  w e r e  d e m o t e d  d o w n  t h e  
P ^ n e - o f - p r o g r e s s i o n  in t h e i r  S p i n n i n g  S e c t i o n  t h a t  t h e y  c o u l d  u s e  t h e i r  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  

in  c o m p e t i t i o n  w i t h  o t h e r e .  T h e y  s t a t e d  t h a t  M r .  B l a c k s h e r ,  t h e i r  A t t o r n e y ,  h a d  
a d v i s e d  t h e m  o f  t h i s .  W e l l ,  i f  t h i s  i s  t h e  c a s e ,  M r .  B l a c k s h e r  i s  w r o n g  i n  h i s  
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  o f  t h e  C o u r t  S e t t l e m e n t  a n d  h a s  g i v e n  the  G r i e v a n t s  b a d  a d v i c e .

R e f e r e n c e :  F r e d d i e  Ea to rv e t c .  V s .  C o u r t a u l d s  N o r t h  A m e r i c a ,  I n c .  S e t t l e m e n t
A g r e e m e n t ,  P a r a g r a p h  V II ,  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  D, 2.  /f
" S u b j e c t  t o  t h e  e x p r e s s  e x c e p t i o n  in P a r a g r a p h  III (F )  a b o v e ,  a n  a f f e c t e d  c l a s s  > 
e m p l o y e e  o r  a n y  o t h e r  p e r s o n  c a n  o n l y  ( u s e  h i s  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  i n  c a s e  o f  d e m o t i o n ,  
l a y - o f f ,  o r  r e c a l l  f r o m  h i s  p o s i t i o n  in t h e  l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  i n  w h i c h  h e  i s  a s  o f  * 
t h e  d a t e  o f  t h i s  s e t t l e m e n t  a g r e e m e n t  d o w n w a r d  t o  t h e  e n t r y  j o b  in t h a t  s a m e  l i n e  o f  
p r o g r e s s i o n , . . .  H e  c a n  a t  n o  t i m e  u s e  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  t o  j u m p  f r o m  s e c t i o n  t o  s e c t i o n  
o r ^ ' f r o m  D e p a r t m e n t  t o  D e p a r t m e n t . "  T

T h e  G r i e v a n t s  d e m o t i o n  o c c u r r e d  on a  d a t e  a f t e r  J a n u a r y  11, 1973 a n d  f r o m  a  j o b  
h i g h e r  in  t h e  l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  t h a n  the  o n e s  t h e y  h a d  on t h e  d a t e  o f  t h e  C o u r t  
S e t t l e m e n t .  A s  a  c o n s e q u e n c e ,  t h e y  h a d  t o  u s e  t h e i r  s e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  d o w n  t o  t h e
j o b  t h e y  o c c u p i e d  o n  J a n u a r y  11, 1 9 7 3 .  A t  t h a t  t i m e  t h e y  c o u l d  t h e n  p i c k  u p  t h e i r  
C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y .  ,

E a t o n  a n d  S u l l i v a n  w e r e  d e m o t e d  s t r i c t l y  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h e  C o u r t  S e t t l e m e n t .

Result: Withdrawn ( ) Settled ( ) Referred to Step Four (

Chairmen Union Grievance Committee
/
I
j



/<

..«el Form No. 38 o e  ‘

C K  > / * J i  t

COURTAULDS N O RTH  A M E R IC A  INC.

L e M o y n e  P l a n t

COM PLAINT FORM
Complaint Number

Department or Section

Date Filed

Employee’s
Name

November 26. 197*+__________
Fred Eaton and Willie Sullivan

2 s  f e d

.Time Filed 8 a.El.
Bale checker
Job

Classification

3 0 8 2 _________
Clock

Number

I have submitted the following complaint to my foreman as required by Step One of the Grievance Procedure and desire to 
process it further. The first occurrence of the facts giving rise to this complaint took place within the last fourteen calendar days.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT: Alleged violation of Article '______ Section_______________

____ Why have we been denied our equal rights in demoting employees
____ which has already been won in the court order?_______________

Settlement or Remedy Desired:. 4--Thn:h.wpfl placed on the job which our seniority
calls for and, all monies_ be paid that m s  lo.qt on nf* the
company’s irregular reasoning.

r— :M i  S ’
Union Representativetentative Signature • Employee’s Signature

Date Submitted to Step Two:.

mployee’s Signature

Date of Disposition: 1 2 / 1 8 / 7 4 ___
T

Disposition A n  a f f e c t e d  c l a s s  e m p l o y e e  c a n  on l y  u s e  h i s  c o u r t  s e n i o r i t y  i n  c a s e  o f  d e m o t i o n ,

__________ l a y - o f f  o r  r e c a l l  f r o m  h i s  p o s i t i o n  in the l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  in  w h i c h  h e w a s  a s  o f

__________ the date  o f  the c o u r t  s e t t l e m e n t .  B o t h  g r i e v a n t s  w e r e  u t i l i t y  o p e r a t o r s  a s o f

thi s  da te  ( 1 / 1 1 / 7 3 ) .  G r i e v a n c e  d e n i e d .

•suit: Withdrawn ( ) Settled ( ) Referred to Step Three  ̂/V

Signature of Union Departmental Chairman



r« 3*a
Gc 3TAULDS N oi.th A meri L Inc.

LeMoyne Plant
>

C O M P L A I N T  F O R M

Complaint Number 74 113

R a y o n  S p i n n i n g
Department or Section

Date Submitted to Step Three:__^ eCrn 3̂er ^ Dateof Hearing on Complaint- D e c m b e r  12, 1 97 4______

Disposition: Date of Disposition- J a n u a r y  21,  1 9 7 5

T h e  G r i e v a n t ,  b y  c h o i c e ,  on S e p t e m b e r  10, 1973 t r a n s f e r r e d  to  the  T r a f f i c  S e c t i o n  
^is  a  F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r .  On S e p t e m b e r  10, 1 97 4  T h i c k l i n  a c q u i r e d "  T r a f f i c  S e c t i o n  

s e n i o r i t y  d a t i n g  b a c k  t o  S e p t e m b e r  10, 1 9 7 3 .  A t  t h i s  t i m e  h e  l o s t  h i s  p r i o r  V i s c o s e  
s e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y .

j

T h i c k l i n  i s  a n  1 A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e i ) "  o f  the  S e t t l e m e n t  A g r e e m e n t ,  ( C i v i l  A c t i o n  
6 6 4 8 - 7 1 - P ) ,  a p p r o v e d  a n d  o r d e t t d  b y  J u d g e  V i r g i l  P i t t m a n  o f  t h e  F e d e r a l  C o u r t  a n d ,  
a 9 s u c h ,  h a s  c o u r t  s e n i o r i t y  w i t h  c e r t a i n  b e n e f i t s  a n d  l i m i t a t i o n s  s p e l l e d  out  i n  
d e t a i l  a n d  a g r e e d  t o  b y  t h e  U n i o n  a n d  the  C o m p a n y .

^ A r t i c l e  D,  P a r a g r a p h  2 ,  of  t h e  A g r e e m e n t s  s t a t e s :
" S u b j e c t  to  t h e  e x p r e s s  e x c e p t i o n  in  P a r a g r a p h  i n  (F )  a b o v e ,  a n  A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  
e m p l o y e e  o r  a n y  o t h e r  p e r s o n  c a n  o n l y  u s e  h i s  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  in  c a s e  of  d e m o t i o n ,  
l a y - o f f ,  o r  r e c a l l  f r o m  h i s  p o s i t i o n  i n  t h e  l i n e  o f  p r o g r e s s i o n  i n  w h i c h  h e  i s  a s  o f  * 
t h e  d a t e  o f  t h i s  S e t t l e m e n t  A g r e e m e n t  d o w n w a r d  t o  t h e  e n t r y  j o b  in  t h a t  s a m e  l i n e  
o f  p r o g r e s s i o n .  H e  c a n  at  n o  t i m e  u s e  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y  t o  j u m p  f r o m  s e c t i o n  t o  
s e c t i o n  o r  f r o m  d e p a r t m e n t  t o  d e p a r t m e n t . "

T h i c k l i n  on J a n u a r y  11, 19 7 3,  the  d a t e  o f  t h e  S e t t l e m e n t  A g r e e m e n t ,  w a s  a  f i l t e r  
s t r i p p e r  in  t h e  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n .  A s  a  c o n s e q u e n c e  o f  c h o o s i n g  t o  l e a v e  t h e  V i s c o a e  
S e c t i o n ,  l o s i n g  h i s  V i s c o s e  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  b y  a c q u i r i n g  T r a f f i c  S e c t i o n  s e n i o r i t y  h e  
i s  n o t  i n  a  p o s i t i o n  t o  m a k e  u s e  o f  h i s  C o u r t  S e n i o r i t y .  ^

e c t i o n  V I I  A c r i c l e  E  f o l l o w s :

o t w i t h s t a n d i n g  a n y t h i n g  to  t h e  c o n t r a r y ,  t h e  p r o v i s i o n s  of  t h e  C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g  
A g r e e m e n t  o f  O c t o b e r  26 ,  197 0,  f o r  a s  l o n g  a s  i t  i s  in  f o r c e ,  a n d  t h e r e a f t e r ,  t h e  
p r o v i s i o n s  o f  a n y  f u t u r e  c o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g  A g r e e m e n t  w h i c h  m a y  b e  in  f o r c e  f r o m  
t i m e  t o  t i m e ,  s h a l l  a p p l y  a n d  p r e v a i l  iii. a l l  i n s t a n c e s  u n l e s s  e x p r e s s l y  m o d i f i e d  b y  J 
t h i s  S e t t l e m e n t  A g r e e m e n t . "

T h e  G r i e v a n t  h a s  b e e n  a c c o r d e d  a l l  o f  t h e  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  t h e  C o u r t  S e t t l e m e n t  p l u s  t h e  
C o l l e c t i v e  B a r g a i n i n g  A g r e e m e n t  b e t w e e n  t h e  U n i o n  a n d  t h e  C o m p a n y .

Result: Withdrawn ( ) Settled ( ) Referred to Step Four ( )

Chairman Union Grievance Committee Manager of Industrial Relations



Personnel Form No. 38
*y

ŝ y/&y'7
Go u r t a u l d s  N o r t h  A m e r ic a  I n c .

L e M o y n e  P l a n t

COM PLAINT FORM
Complaint Number

Date Filed. yĥ~- j -7 . i±y_jy Department or Section

/ * :  3 d )

Employees 
Name

Job
Classification

Clock
Number

I have submitted the following complaint to my foreman as required by Step One of the Grievance Procedure and desire to 
process it further. The first occurrence of the facts giving rise to this complaint took place within the last fourteen calendar days.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT: Alleged violation of Arti^P Seoftnn - Q  y

o r  j  ?  — & . * * * ■ * * - . / >  >

-------- s — J T  «  — PTfc. ^  5 g -  *-„■-------- " j .y _________  _

W
{,/ / y  / c^1

Settlement or Remedy Desired:./—!

J /
^ A 1 2 T

t _

Union Representative Signature

/  /./•'' 5 ^ 7

Employee s 'Signature

Date Submitted to Step Two:. 7 ; L „  J - 7 / ? / ^ Date of Disnositinn: 1 Z / 1 8 / 7 4

Deposition:— A n  e m p l o y e e  t r a n s f e r r i n g  f r o m  on e  s e c t i o n  to a n o t h e r  s h a l l  r e t a i n

a n d  a c c u m u l a t e  l e n g t h  o f  c o n t i n u o u s  s e r v i c e  i n  the s e c t i o n  f r o m  w h i c h  he

t r a n s f e r r e d  f o r  a  p e r i o d  o f  1 2 m o n t h s .  G r j e v a n t  t r a n s f e r r e d  f r o m  the v i s c o s e  

s e c t i o n  on S e p t e m b e r  10,  1 9 7 3 .  G r i e v a n c e  d e n i e d .



A t t a c h m e n t  N o .  2

Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

STORES SECTION - ENGINEERING DEPARTM ENT

C o u r t
N a m e Job S e n i o r i t y
H e r r i n ,  W i l l i a m  H. R e c e i v i n g  C l e r k 9 / 2 9 / 5 2
C o v i n g t o n ,  W e s l e y  E . O r d e r  C l e r k 1 2 / 3 / 5 2
C o o k ,  H e n r y  W. O r d e r  C l e r k 2 / 2 5 / 5 3
T h o m a s ,  V i l a s  L . S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 3 / 6 / 5 3
K i n m a n ,  E l l i s  L . S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 9 / 1 / 5 4

*  H i l l ,  L a m a r S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 3 / 2 0 / 5 6
*  L o c k h a r t ,  S a m u e l I n v e n t o r y  C l e r k 9 / 1 3 / 6 3
* T u r n e r ,  Joe  L e e S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 1 2 / 7 / 6 3

H a l l ,  R a y  D. S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 1 2 / 1 9 / 6 7
M i l l i g a n ,  M e l v i n ,  J r . S t o r e r o o m  C l e r k 1 /13 /6 9

*  A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r s

Qy 5 £<£$1



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

PAINTERS - ENGINEERING DEPARTM ENT

C o u r t
N a m e Job S e n i o r i t y
C a r r o l l ,  John  J. P a i n t e r 8 / 3 / 5 3
M c C o n n e l l ,  R o b e r t P a i n t e r 8 / 1 7 / 5 3
R e s t e r ,  N e l s o n P a i n t e r 6 / 2 7 / 5 5
M i z e l l ,  T h e o  U. P a i n t e r ‘ 8 / 2 2 / 5 5
B e l l ,  E r n e s t  J. P a i n t e r 1 / 3 / 5 6
T r a w i c k ,  E d w a r d P a i n t e r 1 / 4 / 5 7
G o s s e t t ,  C h a r l e s P a i n t e r 2 / 1 4 / 6 6
S t u t t s ,  F r a n k P a i n t e r 1 2 /18 /6 7
N o l f e ,  D a v i d  E . P a i n t e r 1 1/26 /6 8

* A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

L A B O R  S E C T I O N

C o u r t
N a m e Job S e n i o r i t y
S t o n e ,  F r a n k  L . B r i c k m a s o n 9 / 2 4 / 5 2
D a w k i n s ,  P r e s t o n B r i c k m a s o n 1 0 / 7 / 5 3

C r e n s h a w ,  A1  H. L a b o r e r 2 / 5 / 5 3
Y e l d e r ,  P h i l l i p L a b o r e r 3/11/5 3
D e a n ,  A .  G. L a b o r e r 5 / 1 8 / 5 4
P a r t e e ,  W i l l i e L a b o r e r 1/10/56
B u s h ,  L o n i e L a b o r e r 9 /13 /6 3
D a w k i n s ,  L e a r t h u r J a n i t o r 5 / 2 0 / 6 8
T a r v e r ,  A l b e r t L a b o r e r 1 0 / 2 9 / 6 8
S i m s ,  J e r o m e L a b o r e r 9 / 2 9 / 6 9

N o l a n ,  Jo hn J. L a b o r e r 7 / 11 / 7 0
J o i n e r ,  H o r a c e L a b o r e r 7 / 1 3 / 7 0
C u r t i s ,  L o n n i e  C . L a b o r e r 8 / 2 6 / 7 0
M o o r e ,  J a c o b  A . L a b o r e r 1 1/ 2 3 / 7 0
W a t k i n s ,  E l i j a h J a n i t o r 1 1/23 /7 0
P e n n ,  G e o r g e  C . L a b o r e r 4 / 1 9 / 7 1
B u s h ,  E a r n e s t  A . L a b o r e r 9 / 2 1 / 7 1
S t e p h e n s ,  C h a r l e s  D. L a b o r e r 11/10/71
W a i t e ,  G a r y  B. L a b o r e r  • 1 1/29 /7 1
D a v i s ,  N a t h a n i e l L a b o r e r 1 2 / 9 / 7 1
M i l l s ,  S a m u e l L a b o r e r 1 / 3 1 / 7 2
R h o d e s ,  G a r y  M . L a b o r e r 1 / 3 1 / 7 2
T a n n e r ,  B i l l y  R a y L a b o r e r 1 / 3 1 / 7 2
H e a t h c o e ,  R a n d a l l J a n i t o r 2 / 4 / 7 2
W i l l i a m s ,  A r t h u r  L . J a n i t o r 3 / 7 / 7 2
C l a r k ,  B i l l y  R o y L a b o r e r 4 / 2 4 / 7 2
P e r k i n s ,  G e o r g e  E . L a b o r e r 5 / 8 / 7 2

♦ A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r s



Court Sen^rity aa of January 11, 1973

S U N D R Y  O P E R A T O R S

N a m e Job
C o u r t
S e n i o r i t y

*  W o o d y a r d ,  Jo hn S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1 / 1 4 / 5 4
* S t o n e ,  R a n e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 5 / 5 5
* J o n e s ,  R .  H . , J r . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 1 8 / 5 5
* L o f t o n ,  J a m e s S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 5 / 5 5

S m i t h ,  R o b e r t  G. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 4 / 6 8
K i r k l a n d ,  J i m m y  L e e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 2 / 9 / 7 2
H o l la n d ,  M i t c h e l l  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 3 / 7 / 7 2
W h i te ,  Jo hn W. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 4 / 1 2 / 7 2
G o r d o n ,  L a r r y  P . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 4 / 7 2
S m i t h ,  W a l t e r  B . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 6 / 1 5 / 7 2
H u m p h r e y ,  G a r r y  L . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 0 / 7 2
B u s b y ,  H o w a r d  L . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 7 / 7 2
H o w a r d ,  R o b e r t  H. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 7 / 7 2
L e w i s ,  B i l l y  M . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 7 / 7 2
D e a n ,  R o o s e v e l t  F . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 8 / 7 2
T u c k e r ,  T h o m a s  R a y S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 7 / 3 1 / 7 2
S t a f f o r d ,  S t e v e n  L e e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 4 / 7 2
M o s s ,  W a l t e r  B r e n t S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 1 6 / 7 2
R a y ,  D a v i d  F . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 8 / 7 2
C l a r k ,  P a t r i c k  D. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 9 / 7 2
C o l e m a n ,  J o e  F r e d ,  J r . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 3 0 / 7 2
C r e e l ,  R o n a l d S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 8 / 3 0 / 7 2
P r i t c h e t t ,  R o y  L e e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 2 / 7 2
B u r k e ,  A r s i e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 3 / 7 2
D y s o n ,  E r n e s t  D a v i d S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 3 / 7 2
L e e ,  L a r r y  G. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 4 / 7 2
S t o n e ,  F r a n k  L . , J r . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 9 / 7 2
E n t r e k i n ,  A a r o n  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 7 2
S a w y e r ,  R i c h a r d  S . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 7 2
T u r n e r ,  L a w r e n c e  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 7 2
W i g g i n s ,  L a V a u g h n S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 7 2
W r i g h t ,  H e n r y  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 7 2
G l o v e r ,  D a v i d ,  J r . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 / 7 2
G a m b l e ,  D a n d r i c k  O. S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 3 / 7 2
L a n g f o r d ,  R o b e r t  A . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 10/ 10/7 2
C l a r k ,  B e n n i e  L e e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 10 /1 3 /72
A l f o r d ,  P a t r i c i a S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1/1 1/7 3
B l a c k ,  M i l d r e d S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1/11/73
G o l d m a n ,  J i m m i e  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1/11/73
S t a p l e t o n ,  S t a n l e y  E . S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1/11/73
W e a v e r ,  A d d i e S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1/ 11 /7 3
W e a v e r ,  E l l i s o n S u n d r y  O p e r a t o r 1 /11 /7 3

• * Affected Class Members



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

OILERS - ENGINEERING DEPARTM ENT
C o u r t

N a m e Jo b S e n i o r !
* G o o d w in ,  W i l l i a m O i l e r 9 / 8 / 5 2
* H e n d e r s o n ,  R o b e r t  L . O i l e r 1 / 7 / 5 3

T i n d i e ,  W y l i e O i l e r 4 / 2 / 5 6
* T h o r n t o n ,  L e v o n O i l e r 2 / 3 / 6 4

* A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r s



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973
y

R A Y O N  P R O D U C T I O N  D E P A R T M E N T  - T R A F F I C  S E C T I O N

N a m e Job
C o u r t
S e n i o r i t y

B a t c h e l o r ,  C a l v i n  C . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 4 / 5 2
*  E a t o n ,  L o n n i e F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 / 2 7 / 5 3

M e r r i t t ,  W i l l i a m  E . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 4 / 8 / 5 4
N i c h o l s ,  L e w i s  C . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 2 / 6 / 5 6
B y r n e ,  R o b e r t F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 1 / 5 / 5 7
P o o l e ,  B u f o r d  L . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 7 / 2 6 / 6 0
W a r d ,  J a m e s  L . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 2 / 2 6 / 6 2

* B u r t o n ,  G e o r g e ,  J r . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 3 / 2 2 / 6 3
E l l i s o n ,  A l t o n  H. F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 7 / 8 / 6 3

*  B u r r e l l ,  W i l l i e F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 7 / 6 3
K n o t t s ,  C h a r l e s F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 4 / 6 4
W h i t e ,  John ny  J. F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 9 / 6 4
D i c k s o n ,  H a r r y  V . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 7 / 6 5
B r o w n ,  E m o r y F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 2 / 6 5
B u r k e t t ,  D o n a l d F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 1 / 6 9
P u g h ,  S i d n e y F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 7 / 2 1 / 6 9
A n d e r s o n ,  Dan F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 2 / 6 9
M o r g a n ,  R o d n e y  W. F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 9 /11/70

♦ Af fe ct e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r s



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

V I S C O S E  S E C T I O N  - R A Y O N  P L A N T

N a m e
Y o u n g ,  H o r a c e  R.

*  B r e w e r ,  C h a r l i e  
B o u l w a r e ,  R o b e r t  J.  
B r i t t o n ,  J a m e s  H. 
B r o w n ,  R o b e r t  I. 
D a y ,  L a m a r  
G l a s s ,  H o r a c e  D. 
L e e ,  E d w a r d  W. 
M c C r o r y ,  C l a u d e  V .  
M c l l w a i n ,  S t a n l e y  
Sutt on ,  D o n o v a n  M .  
D e a n ,  W i l l i a m  H. 
E n g l i s h ,  C l a r e n c e  H. 
B o w l e s ,  H e r m a n  H. 
P i c k e n s ,  A u b r e y  
K y n a r d ,  E m o r y  
D e a r m o n ,  J a m e s  

15 H u r d ,  S tone  
W i n k l e ,  A l b e r t  A .  
H o l l e y ,  I r v i n  G.

‘ G r a y ,  C h a r l i e  
H a r v i l l ,  John P .  
M c G o w a n ,  E d w a r d  F ,  
W a g n e r ,  C l a r e n c e  H. 
W hiddon,  W i l l i a m  E .  
E n g l i s h ,  A r t h u r  E .  
W a r r e n ,  W i l l i a m  
T h i c k l i n ,  T i l l m a n  
P e o p l e s ,  John 
G a m b l e ,  E l m o r e  

Y o u n g ,  S h e l b y  
M o o r e ,  A l f r e d  P .  
D i n k i n s ,  I s i a h  
B l a c k m o n ,  H e r m a n  
P e t e r s ,  G e o r g e  
H u r d ,  R o o s e v e l t  
G i b b s ,  A l v i n  R.  
G r e e n e ,  L o n z i e  
W e s t ,  J a m e s  
M o o n ,  C h a r l e s  D.  
K n i g h t ,  L e o n a r d  
D a n i e l ,  E l m o r e  
W a l k e r ,  D u d l e y  S .

J o b
C o u r t
S e n i o r i t y

C a v e  O p e r a t o r 5 / 1 / 5 2
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 9 / 8 / 5 2
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 10/1 /5 2
S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
C h u r n  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
C h u r n  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
C h u r n  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 0 / 5 2
S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10 / 2 0 / 5 2
S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10 / 2 0 / 5 2
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 10/2 1/5 2
C h u r n  O p e r a t o r 10/ 21 /5 2
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 1 0 / 2 3 / 5 2
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  # 1 1 1/ 17/ 52
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 1 1/ 2 9 / 5 2
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 4 / 5 3
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 2 / 5 / 5 3
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 2 / 5 3
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 9 / 5 3
P r e s s  R o l l  O p e r a t o r 3 / 1 8 / 5 3
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 2 3 / 5 3
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  # 2 6 / 2 / 5 3
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 10/1/53
C a v e  O p e r a t o r 10/ 15/ 53
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 2 / 8 / 5 4
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 2 / 1 8 / 5 4
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 2 / 2 2 / 5 4
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 3 / 4 / 5 4
P r e s s  R o l l  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 0 / 5 4
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 6 / 5 / 5 4
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 6 /10 /54
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 7 / 1 9 / 5 4
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 8 / 1 2 / 5 4
F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 1 0/ 14/ 54
F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 2 / 5 4
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 1 0 / 2 6 / 5 4
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 8 / 4 / 5 5
P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 8 / 1 8 / 5 5
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 8 / 2 2 / 5 5
U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 9 / 1 / 5 5
P r e s s  R o l l  O p e r a t o r 11/ 21 /5 5
P r e s s  R o l l  O p e r a t o r  1 11/ 21 /5 5

Affected Class Member



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973 

V I S C O S E  S E C T I O N  - R A Y O N  P L A N T
P a g e  N o .  2

C o u r t
N a m  e Job S e n i o r i t y
S a l t e r ,  H e s t l e  L . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 2 / 2 5 / 5 6
M o r g a n ,  J e s s e  B . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 9 / 1 9 / 5 7
M c D o n a l d ,  M u r r a y  L . P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 3 / 5 9
B y r d ,  W o o d i e  R . P u l p  F e e d  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 4 / 6 3
C h a m b e r s ,  O l l i e  J . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 2 / 9 / 6 8
G l o v e r ,  A l p h o n s e F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 5 / 1 4 / 6 9
C h a n e y ,  M e l v i n  J. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 -  D a y 6 / 2 / 7 0
F l o t t ,  L e o F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 4 / 2 7 / 7 1
B a s s ,  W i l l i s  W. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 9 / 1 4 / 7 1
B e l l ,  M i c h a e l  L . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 11/15/ 71
J o h n s o n ,  C h a r l i e  J a m e s F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 11/ 15 /7 1
G a m b l e ,  G r e g o r y F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 11/16/71
B u r k e ,  D o n a l d  E . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 1 / 2 0 / 7 2
O d o m ,  C e c i l  C . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 1 / 3 1 / 7 2
B o l a n ,  M a r k  S. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 2 / 1 4 / 7 2
W a r d ,  A r t h u r  J a m e s F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 3 / 8 / 7 2
T h i c k l i n ,  C h a r l e s  L . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 4 / 4 / 7 2
S u l l i v a n ,  W i l l i a m  E . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 4 / 1 1 / 7 2
W i l l i a m s ,  John H. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 4 / 1 1 / 7 2
S t e p h e n s ,  T o m m y  R . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 5 / 2 5 / 7 2
F l o t t ,  W i l l i e  L e e F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 6 / 6 / 7 2
E v a n s ,  A l v i n  J. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 7 / 3 / 7 2
S m i t h ,  Joe  W a d e F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 7 / 3 / 7 2
H a t t e n s t e i n ,  John  M. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 7 / 1 7 / 7 2
L i t t l e ,  E l l i s  L . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 7 / 1 8 / 7 2
B r o w n ,  K e n n e t h  E a r l F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 8 / 2 2 / 7 2
R e e d ,  J a m e s  L . F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 8 / 3 0 / 7 2
C h e s t a n g ,  C a r l  D. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 9 / 1 4 / 7 2
M c C r e e ,  R o n a l d  O. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 9 / 1 4 / 7 2
M e n c e y ,  W e s l e y  O. F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 9 / 1 4 / 7 2
G a l l a w a y ,  H e n r y F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 9 / 1 9 / 7 2
C h a v e r s ,  P a u l F i l t e r  S t r i p p e r 11/ 18/ 72

\



Court Seniority aa of January 11, 1973

S P I N N I N G  S E C T I O N  - R A Y O N  P L A N T

N a m e Job
C o u r t
S e n i o r i t y

A l l e n ,  H u b e r t  A . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #2 10/2 1/5 2
B e c k ,  C h a r l e s  L . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #1 10/2 1/5 2
C l a n t o n ,  R i c h a r d  L . , S r . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #1 10 /21 /5 2
C o c h r a n ,  M e l v i n  E . S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10/2 1/5 2
C r o c k e r ,  H o w a r d  L . R e c o v e r y  Ope - a t o r  #2 10/2 1/5 2
L e e ,  R o b e r t  R. S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10 /21 /5 2
O ' G w y n n ,  O t i s  E . S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10/ 21 /5 2
P u g h ,  V e r n o n  R . M a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r 10/21/52
S h e f f i e l d ,  W i l l i a m  C . S e n i o r  O p e r a t o r 10/2 1/5 2
T o d d ,  S a m u e l  P . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #1 10/ 21 /5 2
T u c k e r ,  S t e p h e n  S . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #1 10/ 21 /5 2
A t w o o d ,  P a u l  A. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 1 0 / 2 2 / 5 2
L o l l e y ,  D a n i e l  G. D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 2 2 / 5 2
A n t h o n y ,  M i l e s  D. M a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r 12/1 /52
J o n e s ,  i m e s  P . R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #2 12/1 /52
R e y n o l d s ,  A d d l e y  A . J e t  R o o m  A t t e n d a n t 1 2/1/ 52
S m i t h ,  R o b e r t  U. D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 / 5 2
H a m m a c ,  G e o r g e  A. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 3 / 5 2
B r a z e l ,  R a y m o n d  E . D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 4 / 5 2
G e i g e r ,  H a r v e y  F . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 1 2 / 2 4 / 5 2
R o b e r t s ,  H a r o l d  E . J e t  R o o m  A t t e n d a n t 1 2 / 2 4 / 5 2
H a y e s ,  O s b o r n e  V . J e t  R o o m  A t t e n d a n t 2 / 8 / 5 3
S p e a r s ,  O t h a  O. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 2 / 8 / 5 3
S t a n l e y ,  J o s e p h  A .  . D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 2 / 8 / 5 3
A b r a m s ,  A l v a  A . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 2 / 9 / 5 3
P a t e ,  H o w a r d  R . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 2 / 5 3
A l l e n ,  E l l i s  E . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 3 / 9 / 5 3
F r a z i e r ,  John S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 3 / 9 / 5 3
K e l s o e ,  W i l l i a m  E . M a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r 3 / 9 / 5 3
S t a n l e y ,  G e o r g e  J. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 3 / 9 / 5 3
W a r d ,  G r e e r  M. P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 3 / 2 0 / 5 3
R y a l s ,  A l l e n  H. A c i d  R e c o v e r y  O p e r a t o r  #2 5 / 5 / 5 3
B r y a n t ,  G e o r g e  E . , J r .  M a k e - U p  O p e r a t o r 7 / 2 3 / 5 3
N e w t o n ,  N o r m a n  H. D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 1 0 / 5 / 5 3
J a r r e t t ,  E r n e s t  E . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 0 /2 6 /5 3

* S t a l l w o r t h ,  W i l l i e  A. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 6 / 5 4
* E a t o n ,  E a r l  L . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 7 / 2 7 / 5 4

J o n e s ,  R o b e r t  M. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 8/1 0 /5 4
R e e v e s ,  J a m e s  C . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 8 / 2 6 / 5 4
B r u h l ,  J a m e s  W. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 2 7 / 5 4
N i c h o l s ,  L e o n a r d  D. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 9 / 3 / 5 4
R e e v e s ,  L a w r e n c e  J. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 0 / 5 5

* Affected Class Member



■)

1

I

( ) C o u r t  S e n i o i /  a s  of  J a n u a r y  11,

S P I N N I N G  S E C T I O N - R A Y O N  P L A N T
P a g e  N o .  2

C o u r t
N a m  e Job S e n i o r i t y
F e r r i l l ,  R o b e r t  J. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 1 4 / 5 5
D e a r m o n ,  M o r r i s  E. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 1 5 / 5 5
C a r l i s l e ,  H e n r y  H. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 3 / 2 6 / 5 5
Bunn ,  S e a r c y W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 4 / 1 / 5 5
S k i p p e r ,  E m m e t t  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 1 / 5 5
M c K i n l e y ,  A a r o n  T . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 1 / 5 5
O u i n l e y ,  H e r m a n  W. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 2 4 / 5 5
B a r n e s ,  E l v i n W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 6 / 4 / 5 5
K i r k s e y ,  C a l v i n D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 6 / 2 9 / 5 5
M a l o n e ,  J o e l  B . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 7 / 6 / 5 5
K l e p a c ,  G e o r g e D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 7 / 7 / 5 5
L a r d e n t ,  R o b e r t  E . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 7 / 7 / 5 5
L o f t i s ,  B i l l y  G . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 7 / 5 5
C o t h r a n ,  Jo hn A . J e t  R o o m  A t t e n d a n t 7 / 2 0 / 5 5
R o u s e ,  A u d r e n  C . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 5 / 5 5
R e a v e s ,  A l e x a n d e r  R . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 9 / 1 / 5 5
H o w e l l ,  J o h n  H. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 6 / 5 5
D u g g a r ,  D o l p h u s U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #2 1 0 / 8 / 5 5
S h e f f i e l d ,  F r a z i e r W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 10/11/55
L a w s h e ,  W i l l i a m  L . B a l e  C h e c k e r 1 0 / 1 3 / 5 5
K n i g h t ,  C a s s  B . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 10/1 4/5 5
F a g g a r d ,  M u r r a y  A . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 1 1/ 30 /5 5
T r i p l e t t ,  J a m e s  B . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #1 1 2 / 1 7 / 5 5
M a z i n g o ,  Otha W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 2 / 5 5
C h r i s t i a n ,  B o b b y  J. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 9 / 5 5
M c W h o r t e r ,  W i l l i a m B .  W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 1 / 2 5 / 5 6
B a r n e s ,  E d d i e W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 1 / 2 6 / 5 6
B a y l e s ,  R o b e r t  C . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 7 / 5 6
S m i t h ,  W a l t e r  L . D r y e r  O p e r a t o r 2 / 1 7 / 5 6
C a n n o n ,  W. P . B a l e  C h e c k e r  ( L O A ) 2/1 8 /5 6
W r i g h t ,  J o h n  O. W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 2 0 / 5 6
S h i r a h ,  C l i f f o r d W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 2 / 2 7 / 5 6
C o u e y ,  J o s e p h  W. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 3 / 2 / 5 6
J o n e s ,  A r n o l d  R. F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 3 / 1 3 / 5 6
H a r b o u r ,  W i l l i a m  T . W a s h  M a c h i n e  O p e r a t o r 3 / 1 3 / 5 6
G r a v e s ,  J a m e s  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 3 / 1 4 / 5 6
C o b b ,  F r a n k l i n  E. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 3 / 1 5 / 5 6
B r o w n ,  W a l l a c e  D . B a l e  C h e c k e r 3 / 1 9 / 5 6
S a w y e r ,  C h a r l e s  K . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 3 / 2 6 / 5 6
H o w e l l ,  R o b e r t  C . B a l e  C h e c k e r 5 / 2 3 / 5 6
S t a n f o r d ,  G l a s g o w  S. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 6 / 8 / 5 6
E a t o n ,  F r e d d i e U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 7 / 9 / 5 6
E v a n s ,  J a m e s  L . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 10/10/56

J o n e s ,  R o b e r t  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 2 7 / 5 7
M c L e n d o n ,  W. R . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 8 / 3 1 / 5 7

1973

I

3 3 j ^♦ A f fe c te d  C l a s s  M e m b e r



Court Seni ity as of January 11, 197 3

S P I N N I N G  S E C T I O N  - R A Y O N  P L A N T  
P a g e  N o .  3

N a m e Job
C o u r t
S e n i o r i t y

W i l l i a m s ,  D a n i e l  L . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 8 / 3 1 / 5 7
L e e ,  E m m e t t  M . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 5 / 5 6
B o o t h e ,  J a m e s  E . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 0 /1 7/5 6

* E a t o n ,  L e v i S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 9 / 5 9
S t r i c k l a n d ,  H u b e r t F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 5 / 3 / 6 1
R u s h ,  G a r r y  T . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 5 / 4 / 6 1
H a l l ,  W o o d r o w  W. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 5/11/61
M e e k s ,  J o s e p h  T . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 2 5 / 6 1

• G a r t m a n ,  D o n a l d P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 9/1 0 /6 2
M a l o n e ,  J a m e s  E .  , J r . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 3 / 2 2 / 6 3
S m i t h ,  E d w i n  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 10/10/62
H a w s e y ,  V a n  A . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 1 0 / 2 4 / 6 2

— * S u l l i v a n ,  W i l l i e U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 3 / 2 2 / 6 3
J o n e s ,  S l a t e r  L e e S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 3 / 2 5 / 6 3
P a r i s h ,  C h a r l e s B a l e  C h e c k e r 3 / 2 6 / 6 3
D a n t z l e r ,  N o r m a n  L . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 2 3 / 6 3
M y e r s ,  T h o m a s  E . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 1 1/ 2 / 6 3
O d o m ,  G e n e  R . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 11/20/6 3

* S t a l l w o r t h ,  S a m u e l P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 2 / 7 / 6 3
* J o n e s ,  M i l t o n U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 1 2 / 7 / 6 3
* E a t o n ,  W a r r e n B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 12/10/6 3
* S i m s ,  L e r o y S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 12/10 /63
* K e l l y ,  E l i j a h B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 / 3 0 / 6 4

M a d d o x ,  R o b e r t  R a y P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 3 / 5 / 6 4
P i c k r o n ,  D r e w  D. P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 3 / 1 0 / 6 4
P a r k e r ,  P h i l l i p  F . F o r k  L i f t  O p e r a t o r 4 / 1 5 / 6 4
E v a n s ,  J a m e s  R. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 2 5 / 6 4
M i l l e r ,  W i l l i a m  F . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 1/2 3 /6 4
P i t t s ,  B i l l y  J. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 1 1/2 3 /6 4
E v a n s ,  J a m e s  A . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 2 / 4 / 6 4
H a r v e s t o n ,  G e o r g e  D. P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 2 / 4 / 6 4

• W i l l i a m s ,  A l e x  L . U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 3 / 2 / 6 5
G r e e n ,  S a m u e l  R. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 0 / 6 5

\ Do na ld ,  R o b e r t  W. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 3 / 6 5
i *  C r e a g h ,  A l p h o n s e U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 7 / 1 2 / 6 5
1 * Me A u t h o r ,  D a v i d B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 4 / 6 5
!
1 S m i t h ,  G e o r g e  T . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 10/11/65
i M c K e e ,  H u b e r t  L . P r o d u c t i o n  I n s p e c t o r 1 0 / 2 2 / 6 5
1
I *  W i c k s ,  M i l t o n  J. U t i l i t y  O p e r a t o r  #3 11/ 8/6 5
; L a w r e n c e ,  J a m e s  R . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 2 6 / 6 6
1 A d c o c k ,  R o b e r t  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 2 6 / 6 6
i I s h e e ,  K e n n e t h  H. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 /13 /6 6
i * H a y e s ,  T h o m a s B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 5 / 1 5 / 6 7

33& ,

*  A f f e c t e d  C l a s s  M e m b e r



C o u r t  S e n i o r ' t a s  o f  J a n u a r y  11,

S P I N N I N G  S E C T I O N  - R A Y O N  P L A N T
P a g e  N o .  4

C o u r t
N a m  e Job S e n i o r i t y
C o l s t o n ,  John B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 12/11/67
B l a n t o n ,  R a y  T . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 1 5 / 6 7
E a t o n ,  A a r o n B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 1 5 / 6 7
B r o o k s ,  W e s l e y  J. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 / 3 0 /6 8
J o n e s ,  John H. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 2 / 9 / 6 8
R o d g e r s ,  R o b e r t  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 2 /1 4 /6 8
S t i l e s ,  T h o m a s  W. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 2 / 2 6 / 6 8
S t e e l e ,  B i l l y  E a r l S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 6 / 6 8
P a t r i c k ,  C h a r l i e  E . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 5 / 6 8
B a r r o w ,  C h r i s t o p h e r B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 11/2 7 /6 8
O d o m ,  B o b b y  W. . S p i n n e r  and C u t t e r 2 / 1 2 / 6 9
E z e l l ,  R o y  L . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 4 / 2 1 / 6 9
S to ne ,  T h o m a s  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 6 / 1 6 / 6 9
L a f i e t t e ,  L a r r y S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 5 / 6 9
W i l l i a m s ,  W i l l i e B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 9/10 /69
P o w e l l ,  D e r r e l  W . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 1 5 / 6 9
W a l k e r ,  R u s s e l l S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 1 5 / 6 9
T a y l o r ,  J o s e p h  M. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 11/ 3/6 9
C o w a n ,  E d w a r d B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 1/5 /6 9
C r o w e ,  W a r r e n  J. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 5 / 7 / 7 0
B o l d e n ,  F r e e m a n S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 6 / 1 5 / 7 0
L y n c h ,  K e i t h S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 2 / 7 0
B l a k e ,  John A . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 3 / 7 0
S c o t t ,  J o s e p h  A. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 6 / 7 0
W i l l i a m s o n ,  D a l l a s S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 6 / 7 0
C r e e l ,  K e n t S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 7 / 7 0
H a v e n s ,  G e r a l d  R . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 9 / 7 0
G u y ,  R o n a l d B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 7/ 10 /70
H a r r i s ,  T h e o d o r e S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7/ 11 /7 0
M a r t i n ,  E u g e n e S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 7 / 1 4 / 7 0
B u m p e r s ,  F r a n k i e  M . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8 / 2 6 / 7 0

H o w z e ,  I s i a h , B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 6 / 7 0
M o o r e ,  L e e  B a r r o n B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 8 / 2 6 / 7 0

B o x ,  S t e v e n  E . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 8/31/70
H o l l e y ,  V a u d y ,  J r . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 8 / 7 0

R h o d e s ,  O r t i s  C . S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 9 / 9 / 7 0
D a w s o n ,  D e V a i n B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 9/18 /70

C o w a n ,  A l e x B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 0
R o w l a n d ,  T o m m y  G . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4/ 1 0 /71

Hunt, L a r r y B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 6 / 7 1

F e a g i n ,  E d w a r d B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 2 9 / 7 1

D a v i s ,  D a v i d B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 6 / 8 / 7 1

O d o m ,  M i c h a e l  D. S p i n n e r  a n d  C u t t e r 6 / 8 / 7 1

P u g h ,  H a r r y B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 7 / 2 0 / 7 1

H e a r d ,  R o n a l d  R . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 8 / 1 7 / 7 1

* Affected Class Member

I

1973

/*>/*• s



Court Seniority as of January 11, 1973

S P I N N I N G  S E C T I O N - R A Y O N  P L A N T
P a g e  N o .  5

C o u r t
N am e Job S e n i o r i t y
G o o d w in ,  C a r l B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 0 / 7 1
M o s s ,  J a m e s  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 9 / 2 1 / 7 1
L a w s h e ,  W i l l i a m  L .  , J r .  B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 10/18/71
M u n d a y ,  J a c k i e  N e i l B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 10/18/71
L a m b e r t ,  R o n a l d  H. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 11/ 15 /7 1
K n i g h t ,  G.  D .  I l l B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 11/15/71
S m i t h ,  R i c h a r d  C . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 11/15/71
A k r i d g e ,  H e r m a n  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2/1 /71
C o a k e r ,  C l a u d e  C . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 1 / 7 1
S m i t h ,  H a r r y  A. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 1 2 / 7 / 7 1
W i n b u s h ,  L e o n a r d  K. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 3 / 7 / 7 2
G o l d m a n ,  W i l l i a m  D. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 3 / 8 / 7 2
B e l l ,  J o s e p h  C . B a l e  B e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 1 7 / 7 2
W ood ,  B a r r y  D e a n B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 4 / 1 7 / 7 2
C a t l i n ,  W i l l i a m  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 5/ 1 0 / 7 2
T u r n e r ,  R o n n y  P l a t t B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 5 / 1 6 / 7 2
S u m m e r s g i l l , i  S .  H. B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 5 / 2 2 / 7 2
C h a v e r s ,  T e d  O ' N e a l B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 6 / 6 / 7 2
L o w e r y ,  T e r r y  L . B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 6 / 3 0 / 7 2
B o l e n  , J a c k B a l e  P r e s s  O p e r a t o r 7 / 7 / 7 2





■ Iy i '.» il^ i^ fr i)ll^ ll|.ii>TV:ri^t'~ri'r,i‘ t  pi-y' -hrn— > ;Vi~y ■■ ti- yfiin —~iin-ri-iintim w rmu u m m * * .* *  —

APPENDIX "B”

CLASSIFICATION AND SECTIONS

AND LINES OF PROGRESSION

Classification:

Entry Job
Fork Lift Operator
Maid
Maintenance Mechanic 
Oiler
Salvage Man 
Sundry Operator 
Warehouseman

SECTIONS AND LINES OF 
PROGRESSION:

Spinning Section (Rayon Plant):

Viscose Section (Rayon Plant):
■ > Senior Operator 

Churn Operator 
Utility Operator *1 
Cave Operator 
Utility Operator #2 
Pulp Feeder 
Press Roll Operator 

! Filter Stripper
Fork Lift Operator

j Labor Section:
-f Laborer 
| Janitor

Chemical Laboratory Section (Rayon 
| Plant):

t Lab Tester - Coloray
Lab Tester - Physical Testing

. i Senior Operator
Recovery Operator *\ 
Recovery Operator *2 
Make-Up Operator 
Spinning Control Operator 
Jet Room Attendant 
Spinning and Cutter 
Utility Operator #1 
Dryer Operator 
Bale Checker 
Wash Machine Operator 
Production Inspector 
Utility Operator #2 
Fork Lift Operator 
Bale Press Operator

88

Stores Section:

t Order Clerk 
Receiving Clerk 
Stores Inventory Clerk 
Storeroom Clerk

Textile Weaving Section:
Weaving Operator

t«

Textile Textile Section:
Textile Operator

i; ’i

87



Textile Section (Nylon Plant):
| Inspector 
| Drawtwist Operator 

Doff Crew
Patrol Repair Relief Crew

Spinning Section (Nylon Plant)

(Spinning Operator 
Take-Up Operator 
Creel Operator 
Utility Operator

Quality Control Section (Nylon Plant):
Lab Testers

APPENDIX "C”
AUTHORIZATION

Textile Workers Union of America, 
AFL-CIO-CLC

I, the undersigned, voluntarily authorize and 
direct Courtaulds North America Inc. to deduct 
weekly from wages due, current Union dues, 
including initiation fees, in such amounts as shall 
be fixed pursuant to the By-Laws of the Local 
and the Constitution of the Union, and to pay 
the same to the Union or its designated agent 
pursuant to the provisions of any current or future 
Collective Agreement.

This assignment, authorization and direction 
shall be irrevocable for the period of one year or 
until the termination of the current Collective

I

I .

Agreement between the Employer and the Union, 
whichever occurs sooner, und I agree and direct 
that this assignment, authorization and direction 
shall be automatically renewed and shall be 
irrevocable for successive periods of one year each, 
or for the period of each succeeding applicable 
Collective Agreement between the Employer and 
Union, whichever shall be shorter, unless written 
notice is given by me to the Employer and the 
Union by registered mail not more than fifteen 
(15) days and not less than ten (10) days prior 
to the expiration of each period of one year or 
each applicable Collective Agreement between 
the Employer and the Union, whichever occurs 
sooner.

Department

Address

Telephone No.

Signature of Employee

City State Zip Code

Social Security No. Date

89



CRAW FORD, BLACKSHER & KENNEDY
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W

V E R N O N  Z .  C R A W F O R D  

J A M E S  U.  B L A C K S H E R  

C A I N  J. K E N N E D Y

M I C H A E L  A .  F I G U R E S  

W. C L I N T O N  B R O W N ,  J R .

August 4, 1975

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
United States District Judge United States District Court Post Office Box 465 
Mobile, Alabama 36601
Re: Eaton and Austin v. Courtaulds North America Inc.

Civil Action Nos. 6648-71-P and 6768-71-P,Motion for Declaration of Rights and Enforcement of Decree Filed by Plaintiffs on March 25, 1975_______
Dear Judge Pittman:
I am not writing to reply to the arguments made by Mr. Brock 
in his letter to you dated July 24, 1975, concerning the subject motion. Such a reply would be beyond the scope Your Honor 
ordinarily allows when motions are submitted to you upon the briefs of counsel.
Rather, I am writing only to ask that, in fairness to all the 
parties, Your Honor not consider certain remarks made on pages 
5 and 6 of Mr. Brock's letter-brief. There, counsel makes certain allegations concerning testimony given at the arbitration hearing 
by Don Smith of Courtaulds and officers of the defendant Unions.
It may be that the Court considers these remarks of no relevance to the controversy in any event. We contend that they are not.
I only wish to point out the unfairness of Mr. Brock's reference to the opinions of these persons concerning the meaning of the 
consent decree. As Your Honor knows, the negotiations over the 
consent decree were conducted between the lawyers for the parties. 
As a courtesy, plaintiffs' counsel consented to allowing Don Smith, Hestle Salter and Wes Covington occasionally to sit in on these 
negotiations a£ observers. The negotiations were between counsel 
and only counsel can speak for their respective intentions and understandings during them. I am sure you are aware of the ethical difficulties it would cause me if I were forced to give

1 4 0 7  D A V I S  A V E N U E  

B I L E ,  A L A B A M A  3 6 6 0 3

AUG 5 1975
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

MOBILE, ALA.



(r \

August 4, 1975 Honorable Virgil Pittman Page 2.

testimony in a matter so directly concerning my clients.

Therefore, I ask the Court to treat the negotiations betw^ 
concerning the Settlement Agreement with the same confide 
ordinarily accorded to other such negotiations.
Very respectfully,

CRAWFORD, BLACKSHER & KENNEDY

*<J. U. Blacksher 

JUB:bm
cc: All Counsel