Eaton v. Courtaulds of North America, Inc. Appendix
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1976

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Eaton v. Courtaulds of North America, Inc. Appendix, 1976. 13f51574-b09a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/482af8e6-d956-4653-a7e5-13b402ee64ad/eaton-v-courtaulds-of-north-america-inc-appendix. Accessed July 30, 2025.
Copied!
► 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