State v. Edwards Jr. Transcript of Record

    ^aX sL> CL̂ u - |

Nos. 80-1190 and 80-1193

In The

(ilrnirt of %  Ulntteih Zlatas
October Term, 1980

Pullman-Standard, a Division of Pullman, Incorporated,
Petitioner,

v.

Louis Swint and Willie Johnson,
Respondents.

United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL-CIO and 
Local 1466, United Steelworkers of A merica, 

AFL-CIO,
Petitioners,

v.

Louis Swint and Willie Johnson,
Respondents.

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals 
For The Fifth Circuit

JOINT APPENDIX

[Counsel listed on inside cover]

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 15, 1981 
CERTIORARI GRANTED ON APRIL 20, 1981

60



Jack  Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
Judith Reed 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397
Elaine R. Jones 
Counsel of Record 
Barry L. Goldstein 
Suite 940
806 15th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
(202) 638-3278
Oscar W. Adams, III 
2121 Eighth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Counsel for Respondents

Samuel H. Burr 
C. V. Stelzenmuller 
Thomas, Taliaferro, F orman, 

Burr & Murray 
1600 Bank For Savings Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 
(205) 251-3000
F. B. Snyder 
200 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60604 
Counsel for Petitioner 

Pullman-Standard
Michael H. Gottesman 
Counsel of Record 
Robert M. Weinberg 
Julia Penny Clark 
David M. Silberman 
Bredhoff, Gottesman, Cohen, 

Chanin , Weinberg & 
Petramalo

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 
(202) 833-9340
Bernard Kleiman 
General Counsel 
United Steelworkers of 

A merica, AFL-CIO 
1 East Wacker Drive 
Suite 1910
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Carl B. F rankel 
Associate General Counsel 
United Steelworkers of 

A merica, AFL-CIO 
Five Gateway Center 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Jerome A. Cooper 
Cooper, Mitch & Crawford 
409 N. 21st Street, Suite 201 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Laurence J. Gold 
815 - 16th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006
Counsel For Petitioners,

United Steelworkers of America,, 
AFL-CIO And Local 1466, 
United Steelworkers of America, 
AFL-CIO



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Docket Entries ............... ............... ....................................  1
Amended Complaint .................................... ...... .............  14
Second Amended Complaint ........................ ..... .......... . 17
Answer of Defendant International Association of 

Machinists ......................................... ..... ..... .................  26
Pre-Trial Order dated June 5, 1974 ......... .... ...... .........  28
Transcript of 1974 Trial ......... ....... ........... ................. . 31
Exhibits Introduced at 1974 T rial.............................. . 65
Transcript of 1978 Trial ...... ................. ......... ..... ....... . 91
Exhibits Introduced at 1978 Trial_______________ ___  103
Depositions Introduced at 1978 T rial________________ 337
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative

Facts, with attachments ......... ....... ........................... . 346



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CA 71-955
Jury demand date:

Denied by Oral Order 7/8/74 
Re-open 9-24-76 

10-11-77
BASIS: Title VII

Sam C. Pointer, Jr., Judge

Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of 
themselves and others similarly situated,

Clyde Humphrey,
Intervenorvs.

Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel­
workers of A merica Local 1466; and United Steel­
workers of A merica, APL-CIO, International As­
sociation of Machinists

CIVIL DOCKET

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1971
Oct. 19 Complaint filed

19 Summons and complaint issued—del. to U.S.
Marshal for service

Nov. 5 Motion of defendants United Steelworkers of 
America, AFL-CIO and Local 1466, United Steel­
workers of America, to dismiss the complaint 
filed—copy served by counsel 11/23/71 Over­
ruled—30 days to answer (Pointer)



2

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1971

5 Summons and complaint returned executed on 
10-21-71 on Pullman-Standard, on 10-28-71 on 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and 
on 11-1-71 on United Steelworkers of America 
Local 1466 and filed

9 Motion of defendant Pullman-Standard to dismiss 
the complaint filed— copy served by counsel 
11/23/71 Overruled (Pointer) cm

Dec. 23 Answer of defendants, United Steelworkers of 
America, AFL-CIO and Local 1466, United Steel­
workers of America, to the complaint filed— 
copy served by counsel

30 Answer of defendant, Pullman-Standard, a Divi­
sion of Pullman, Inc., a corp. to the complaint 
filed—copies served by counsel

1972

Jan. 26 Interrogatories by plaintiffs propounded to de­
fendants filed—copy served by counsel on United 
Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and AFL- 
CIO

May 30 Interrogatories of plaintiffs propounded to defend­
ants filed—copy served by counsel on United 
Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and United 
Steel Workers of America AFL-CIO and 
Pullman-Standard

July 6 Order on PRETRIAL conference held July 5, 1972, 
dated July 6, 1972, filed and entered (Pointer) 
cm

10 Amendment by defendant, Pullman-Standard, to 
answer filed— copies served by counsel



8

DATE

1973

Jan. 9

9

Jul 6 

6

1974 

Mar 11

12

May 3

30

31 

31

PROCEEDINGS

Objections by defendant Pullman-Standard, a Di­
vision of Pullman incorporated, a Corp. to inter­
rogatories filed— copies served by counsel

Answers of defendant Pullman-Standard to in- 
terogatories filed— exhibits attached— copies 
served by counsel

Depositions (4) of William H. Lee, Jr., Billie J. 
Carroll, Louis Stubbs and Harry E. DeBrow 
taken on behalf of plaintiffs—filed

Depositions (4) of James D. Moss, Arthur S. 
Lightfoot, William Joseph Harris and Harry P. 
Crane, Jr. taken on behalf of plaintiffs—filed

Second interrogatories of plaintiff propounded to 
defendant company, filed— cs

Notice that plaintiffs have associated Ms. Marilyn 
Holified and Jack Greenberg of 10 Columbus 
Circle, New York, New York 1009, as counsel 
of record for plaintiffs, filed— cs

Answers of defendant, Pullman-Standard, a Di­
vision of Pullman, Incorporated, by Fred W. 
McCool, to second interrogatories propounded 
by plaintiffs, filed—cs

Request by pltffs for production of documents by 
deft, filed—cs

Supplemental request by pltffs for production of 
documents by deft Pullman-Standard, filed— cs

Motion of plffs to compel answers by plffs to inter­
rogatories, filed—cs



4

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1974
Jun 5 Order dated June 4, 1974 on PRETRIAL CON­

FERENCE held same date that the prerequisites 
of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) (2) are satisfied and 
that this action may hereafter be maintained on 
behalf of all black persons who are nor or have 
within one year prior to filing of any charges 
under Title VII been employed by defendant 
Company or maintenance employees represented 
by the United Steelworkers; and granting leave 
to add as additional party defendant, Inter­
national Association of Machinists; and grant­
ing leave for the intervention as a party plaintiff 
of an employee by the name of Humphrey— 
filed and entered (Pointer) cm

Jun 5 Notices (2) that deft will take the deposition of 
Clyde Humphrey at 9 :00 a,m. and Louis Swint 
at 1 :00 p.m., June 18, 1974, filed—cs

12 Notice that plffs will take the deposition of deft 
company’s plant manager at 10:00 a.m., June 
17, 1974, filed— cs

20 Amended complaint, filed
20 Summons and complaint as amended issued—del 

to USM
25 Deposition of Louis Swint taken on behalf of deft 

Pullman-Standard—filed
Deposition of William Clyde Horton taken on be­

half of plffs—filed
28 Motion of deft Pullman-Standard to strike por­

tions of amended complaint, filed— cs 7/8/74— 
Denied, paragraphs 1 & 3 being unnecessary & 
paragraph 2 denied on the merits (Pointer) cm

28 Response of deft employer to request and suppler- 
mental request for production of documents, 
filed—cs



1974
28

28

Jul 1 

1

8

8

9

9

10

DATE

11

PROCEEDINGS

Answer of deft Pullman-Standard to amended 
complaint, with jury demand thereon on issue 
of amount of recovery, filed— cs

Supplemental answers of deft Pullman-Standard 
to first set of interrogatories filed— cs

List of witnesses of deft, United Steelworkers of 
America & Local 1466, filed—cs

List of witnesses and documents which deft 
Pullman-Standard anticipates it may use at 
trial, filed— cs

Further supplemental answers of deft employer to 
first set of interrogatories filed— cs

On trial before the Hon. Sam C. Pointer, Jr. 
Answers (2) of defts to plffs’ amended com­
plaint filed. Depositions (3) of Clyde, Hum­
phrey, Willie James Johnson and James R. Hud­
son filed. Oral order denying jury demand en­
tered. Plffs’ motion to compel declared moot. 
Plffs’ testimony. Daily adjournment.

Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment.

Summons & amended complaint returned, exe­
cuted on 6/25/74 on International Association 
of Machinist and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO 
and filed

Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment.

Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Defts’ 
offer of deposition plus exhibits attached there­
to, of Clyde Humphrey received by the Court. 
Daily adjournment.



PE

r4
12

15

16

17

18

7

8

9

12

13

6

PROCEEDINGS

Trial resumed. Plffs’ testimony resumed. Defts’ 
offer of deposition of Louis Swint received by 
the Court. Plffs’ rest. Defts’ oral motions for 
involuntary dismissal as to individual cases en­
tered. Arguments by counsel. Plffs’ second 
amendment to complaint filed. Service accepted 
on behalf of Local 372 by T. W. Horn. Daily 
adjournment.

Trial resumed. Oral order granting deft union’s 
oral motion, and denying deft company’s oral 
motion for involuntary dismissal of individual 
claims of Swint and Humphrey, entered. SCP. 
Defts’ testimony. Daily adjournment.

Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment.

Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment.

Trial resumed. Defts’ testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment until Aug. 7, 1974, at 9 :00 a.m.

Trial resumed—defendants’ testimony resumed— 
daily adjournment—

Trial resumed—defendants’ testimony resumed— 
daily adjournment—

Trial resumed— oral motion by plaintiffs to limit 
defendants’ Exh. 257 and 258—motion granted 
—defendants’ testimony resumed—daily ad­
journment—

Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed. Daily 
adjournment.

Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed and com­
pleted. Union testimony begins. Daily adjourn­
ment.



7

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1974
14 Trial resumed. Deft’s testimony resumed. Oral 

motion by plffs to limit deft’s exhibit 351. Mo­
tion granted Daily adjournment.

15 Trial resumed. Defense rested. Plffs’ rebuttal testi­
mony. Testimony concluded. Daily adjournment.

16 Trial resumed. Final arguments heard. Case taken 
under submission.

Aug 16 Clerk’s Court Minutes that this case is taken under 
submission. Written order to be entered by the 
Court—filed and entered—cm

Sept 13 Memorandum of Opinion filed and entered (Point­
er) cm

13 Judgment in accordance with the findings and 
conclusions contained in the Memorandum of 
Opinion filed concurrently herewith that: 1. The 
Memorandum of Agreement of May, 1972 be­
tween the Department of Labor and Pullman- 
Standard is declared to be binding upon the 
union defendants; but eligibility under the 
agreement for transfers from the Janitors, 
Truck and Die & Tool (CIO) departments and 
for transfers to the Plant Protection, Inspec­
tion, and Air Brake & Pipe Shop departments 
shall be modified to include certain classes of 
employees as more fully specified in the Memo­
randum of Opinion. Liability, if any, for back 
pay in favor of persons benefited by such change 
in eligibility respecting transfers from the Jani­
tors, Truck, and Die & Tool departments is 
severed for subsequent proceedings, as may be 
necessary, in accordance with procedures speci­
fied in the Memorandum of Opinion; but there 
is no just reason for delay as to the other issues 
in the case and entry of final judgment as to all



8

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1974
such other issues is expressly directed. 2. In 
all other respects the claims of plaintiffs and of 
the plaintiff class are denied and the action, dis­
missed with prejudice. 3. Each party to bear its 
own costs—filed and entered (Pointer) copies 
del to attys

16 Notice of appeal by plff from final order of U.S. 
District Court on September 13, 1974, filed— 
certified copies mailed

16 Bond for Costs on Appeal ($250.00) filed

23 Order pursuant to Rule 11(d) extending the time 
within which the record on appeal may be filed 
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit of New Orleans 50 days from the 26th 
day of October, 1974—filed and entered (Point­
er) cm

Dec 9 Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam 
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on July 8, 1974, filed 
(6 vols.)

13 Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam 
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on July 8, 1974, filed 
vols 7 and 8)

13 Certified record on appeal mailed to Clerk, USCA 
(7 boxes and one chart cylinder) copies of trans­
mittal letter, docket entries & exhibit list mailed 
attys

1976
Sept. 16 Cost Bill ($5,739.55)—filed by attys. for pltfs,

21 Motion of deft., Pullman-Standard To Defer Con­
sideration of Costs—filed—es del. SCP



9

, DATE PROCEEDINGS

1976
24 Certified copy of judgment from 5th Cir. issued 

as & for the mandate, opinion attached—filed 
(affirmed in part, vacated & remanded in part; 
defts.—appellees to pay costs on appeal) Cole­
man, Clark & Gee

21 Exhibits (4 boxes) received from 5th Cir.—seem 
to be missing exhibits

Oct. 26 Order (Cert, copy) from 5th Cir. on motion of 
appellee, Pullman-Standard recalling 9/21/76 
order & amending to provide that %  of the costs 
incurred by pltfs.-appellants shall be taxed to 
defts.-appellees and )4 to pltfs.-appellants; re­
mainder of each party’s costs shall be borne by 
the party incurring same; except as recited 
above, the motion of appellee is denied—filed 
(Clark)

Nov. 9 Copy of Cost Bill ($7,348.40) from 5th Cir.—filed 
lrc

1977
Jan. 13 Order that costs of plaintiffs on appeal ($5,686.45) 

are taxed 3/8 against the company defendant 
and 3/8 against the union defendant, briefs 
be filed simultaneously by all parties prior to 
2-1-77 as to remaining issues discussed on 
12-7-76 and that a hearing is set at 9 AM on 
2-22-77 for taking additional evidence as to 
appointments to supervisory positions and sta­
tistical information, filed and entered. SCP— 
cm—add.

Feb. 10 Notice of pltfs. of Taking Deposition of Dr. Albert 
Wolfe on 2/16/77 in B’ham.—filed—cs Ire 
VACATED, see 2/17/77 entry



10

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1977
17 Motion of Pullman Standard To Vacate Notice of 

Taking Deposition of Dr. Albert E. Wolfe— 
filed-cs GRANTED, 2/16/77 w /o  objection by 
pltf.— SCP—cm lrc

22 Hearing on remaining issues as to Supervisory 
positions and statistical information before the 
Hon. Sam. C. Pointer, Jr. Plaintiffs’ agreements 
and job descriptions offered and received by the 
court. Defendant Company’s testimony. De­
fendant company rest. No union testimony. 
Plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony. Daily adjourn­
ment. (JoeMarotta, Reptr.) add

23 Hearing resumed. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal testimony 
resumed. Plaintiffs rest. Evidence taken under 
advisement. (John Weaver, Reptr.) add 

Clerk’s Court Minutes, filed, add
July 5 Memorandum of Opinion—filed (Pointer)-cm lrc

5 Judgment in accordance with memo entering judg­
ment in favor of defts.; each party to bear own 
costs—filed & entered (Pointer)-cm lrc

15 Motion of pltf. for New Trial-filed-es del. SPC lrc 
see 10/11/77 order

15 Motion of pltfs. to Alter or Amend Judgment-filed- 
cs del. SCPTrs— see 10/11/77 entries

Sept. 7 Response of pltfs. to motion of company to clarify 
taxation of costs or to retax costs-—filed-cs lrc 
del. SCP.

Oct. 4 Motion of Pullman-Standard to> Clarify Taxation of 
Costs or to Retax Costs—filed cs del. SCP lrc 
DENIED; 11/16/77-SCP-cm lrc

LI Memorandum of Opinion—filed (Pointer)-cm lrc



11

DATE

1977

11

Nov. 18 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21

Dec 14

Dec 20 

30

1978

Jan 16

16

PROCEEDINGS

Order granting new trial limited to seniority sys­
tem under Sec. 703(h) of Civil Rights Act of 
1964— filed & entered (Pointer)-cm lrc

Interrogatories of pltfs. to Deft. Company on Se­
niority Remand Issue-filed-es lrc

Request of pltf. for Production by Local Lodge 
372, IAM-filed-cs lrc

Request of pltfs. for Production by deft, company- 
filed-cs lrc

Request of pltfs. for Production by Steelworkers 
Union-filed-cs lrc

Interrogatories of pltfs. to Local Lodge 372, IAM- 
filed-cs lrc

Interrogatories of pltfs. to Steelworkers Union- 
filed-cs lrc

Request of plff for execution of judgment for plffs’ 
court costs on appeal, filed

Answers of deft, Pullman-Standard, to interroga­
tories by plff, filed— cs Ipc

Notice that the plaintiffs will take the depositions 
of Mautman Herring, Colon Clemons, Bill Crock- 
well and Clyde Robertson, Jan 9, 1978, at Bir­
mingham, Ala., filed, cs Ihj

Deposition of Clyde A. Robertson taken on behalf 
of plff—filed Ipc

Deposition of Colon V. Clemons taken on behalf 
of plff—filed Ipc



12

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1978
16 Deposition of Johnny Joseph Mautman Herring 

taken on behalf of plff— filed Ipc
16 Deposition of William Harris Crotwell taken on 

behalf of the plff, filed skh
16 Answers of deft, Steelworkers Union to interroga­

tories by plff, filed.— cs add
16 On trial as to Seniority issue before the Hon Sam 

C. Pointer, Jr. (Dempsey, Repr.) Answers by 
defendants (Company & Union) to plff s’ inter­
rogatories that were filed 12-20-77 and 2-16-78 
respectively, received in evidence by the Court. 
Deposition of Mautman Herring offered into 
evidence by plff and rec’d by Court. Deposition 
of Colon Clemons offered into evidence by plff 
and rec’d by the Court. Deposition of Clyde 
Robertson offered into evidence by plff and rec’d 
by Court. Deposition of William Crotwell offered 
into evidence by plff and rec’d by Court. Plffs’ 
exhibits 1 thru 111 offered in evidence and rec’d 
by Court. Deft company exhibits 1 thru 27 of­
fered in evidence and rec’d by Court. Defts’ evi­
dence put on by stipulation dictated into the 
record. Simultaneous briefs to be submitted to 
the Court by 2-16-78 and reply briefs to be sub­
mitted by 3-2-78. Case taken under submission.

16 Clerk’s Court Minutes, filed add
Feb 24 Writ of execution of judgment for plffs’ court costs 

on appeal issued—del to USM for service skh
Mar 3 Request of plffs for judicial notice adjudicative 

facts, with attachments, filed— cs skh
May 5 Memorandum of Opinion (Pullman-Standard V) — 

filed and entered (Pointer) cm skh



LE

5

15

25

25

81

21

21
27

28

10

13

PROCEEDINGS

JUDGMENT in accordance with findings of fact 
and conclusions of law contained in Memoran­
dum of Opinion filed concurrently herewith, is 
entered in favor of defts; each party shall bear 
its own costs—filed and entered (Pointer) cm 
skh

Motion of deft, Pullman-Standard under Rule 
52(b) for relief, filed—cs skh— SEE ORDER 
DATED 5/81/78

Response of plffs to Pullman Standard’s motion to 
amend judgment filed— cs-snh

Amendment of deft, Pullman Standard, to motion, 
filed, with attachments—cs skh

ORDER dated 5/30/78 that upon consideration of 
deft Pullman-Standard’s motion, said motion is 
denied—filed and entered (Pointer) cm skh

Notice of appeal by plffs, Louis Swint and Willie 
James Johnson, etc. to Fifth Circuit from final 
order entered on May 5, 1978, and all prior in­
terlocutory orders entered herein, filed—del to 
SPC lpc

Bond ($250.00) for costs on appeal, filed lpc
Transcript of proceedings before the Hon. Sam 

C. Pointer, Jr. on January 16, 1978 filed skh
ORDER that the time within which the record on 

appeal in this cause may be filed with the U. S. 
Court of Appeals is extended to and including 
August 11, 1978—filed and entered (Pointer) 
cm skh

Transcript of the proceedings before the Hon. Sam 
C. Pointer, Jr. commencing on February 22, 
1977—filed skh



14

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Civil Action Number 71-955

Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of 
themselves and others similarly situated, 

yg Plaintiffs,

Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel­
workers of A merica, Local 1466; and United Steel­
workers of America, AFL-CIO,

Defendants.

Jun. 20, 1974

AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1343(4) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. 
§§ 2201 and 2202. This is a suit in equity authorized 
and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Act of Con­
gress known as “ The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 
U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court 
is invoked to secure protection of and to redress depriva­
tion of rights secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 
providing for injunctive and other relief against racial 
discrimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 
providing for the equal rights of all persons in every 
state and territory within the jurisdiction of the United 
States to make and enforce contracts. Jurisdiction of 
this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 
et seq., based on violations of the duty of fair representa­
tion owed to plaintiffs and the class they represent.

*  *  *  *



15

V.

(A) Defendant, Pullman Standard, is a Producer of 
railroad cars, doing business in the State of Alabama, 
and the City of Bessemer. The Company operates and 
maintains offices and plants and is an employer within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b) or (c) in that the 
Company is engaged in an industry affecting commerce 
and employs at least twenty-five persons.

(B) Defendant, International Union, United Steel­
workers and Local 1466 is a labor organization within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1 2000e(d) and (c) in that 
United Steelworkers, Local 1466 is engaged in an in­
dustry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or in 
part, for the purpose of dealing with the Company con­
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, 
hours, and other terms or conditions of employment of 
the employees of the Company at its plants and other fa­
cilities located in various cities and states throughout 
the United States, including employees of the Company’s 
plants and other facilities in and around the City of 
Bessemer in the State of Alabama. The Local 1466, 
U.S.W. has at least twenty-five members.

(C) The International Association of Machinist and 
Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO, is the certified collective 
bargaining agent for the employees in the machinists 
bargaining unit. It has at least twenty-five members.

VI.

(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, con­
ditions and privileges of employment of the plaintiffs and 
the class they represent have been, at all times material 
to this action, governed and controlled by collective bar­
gaining agreements entered into between the Interna­
tional Union, United Steelworkers, and the Company and/ 
or local supplemental agreements (hereinafter referred



16

to as “ agreements” ) entered into between Local 1466 
and the Company. Under and pursuant to the terms of 
the aforementioned agreements, the defendants have es­
tablished a promotional and seniority system, the design, 
intent and purpose of which is to continue and preserve, 
and which has the effect of continuing and preserving, 
the defendants’ policy, practice, custom and usage of 
limiting the employment and promotional opportunity of 
Negro employees of the Company because of race or 
color.

(B) Defendant Local 1466 has failed and refused to 
properly represent its black members with respect to the 
matters herein complained of.

(C) The International Association of Machinist and 
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is subject to service of 
process herein and its joinder will not deprive the court 
of jurisdiction under the subject matter of this action. 
In its absence, complete relief can not be accorded among 
those already parties. In addition, the said International 
Union has an interest relating to the subject of this ac­
tion and it is so situated that the disposition of this 
action in his absence may as a practicable matter im­
pair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Plain­
tiffs do not seek any monetary damages against this 
defendant.



17

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Civil Action Number 71-955

Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of 
themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama; United Steel­
workers of A merica, Local 1466; United Steel­
workers of America, AFL-CIO; International As­
sociation of Machinists, AFL-CIO; and Local 372, 
International Association of Machinists, AFL- 
CIO,

Defendants.

[Filed July 12, 1974]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
By leave of court previously granted, plaintiffs file 

this complaint, as twice amended.

I.
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1343(4), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. 
§§ 2201 and 2202. This is a suit in equity authorized 
and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Act of Con­
gress known as “ The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
§§ 2000e et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court is in­
voked to secure protection of and to redress deprivation 
of rights secured by (a) 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 
providing for injunctive and other relief against racial 
discrimination in employment and (b) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 
providing for the equal rights of all persons in every



18

state and territory within the jurisdiction of the United 
States to make and enforce contracts. Jurisdiction of 
this Court is also invoked pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 
et seq., based on violations of the duty of fair representa­
tion owed to plaintiffs and the class they represent.

II.
A. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf 

and on behalf of other persons similarly situated pur­
suant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce­
dure. The class which plaintiffs represent is composed 
of black persons who are employed, or might be em­
ployed, by the Pullman Standard Company at its plant 
located in Bessemer, Alabama, and who are members or 
might become members, of the International Union, 
United Steelworkers of America, and Local 1466, who 
have been and continue to be or might be adversely af­
fected by the practices complained of herein.

B. There are common questions of law and fact af­
fecting the rights of the members of this class who 
are, and continue to be limited, classified and discrimi­
nated against in ways which deprive and tend to deprive 
them of equal employment opportunities and otherwise 
adversely affect their status as employees because of 
race and color. These persons are so numerous that 
joinder of all members is impracticable. A common re­
lief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately 
represented by plaintiffs. Defendants have acted or re­
fused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.

C. The prosecution of separate actions by or against 
individual members of the class would create a risk of 
inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to in­
dividual members of the class which would establish 
incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.



19

III.

This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to 
plaintiffs’ rights and for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction, restraining defendants from maintaining a 
policy, practice, custom or usage of: (a) discriminating 
against plaintiffs and black persons in this class because 
of a race or color with respect to compensation, terms, 
conditions and privileges of employment and (b) limit­
ing, segregating and classifying employees of defendant, 
Pullman Standard Company, who are members of Inter­
national Union, United Steelworkers Local 1466, in ways 
which deprive plaintiffs and other black persons in this 
class of equal employment opportunities and otherwise 
adversely affect their status as employees because of race 
and color.

IV.

(A) Plaintiff Louis Swint is a Negro citizen of the 
United States and a resident of Bessemer in the State 
of Alabama. Plaintiff Swint has been employed by de­
fendant, Pullman Standard at its plant in Bessemer, 
Alabama and is a member in good standing of Inter­
national Union, United Steelworkers, Local 1466.

(B) Plaintiff Willie James Johnson is a Negro citizen 
of the United States and a resident of Bessemer in the 
State of Alabama. Plaintiff Johnson is and has been 
employed by defendant Pullman Standard, at its plant 
in Bessemer, Alabama and is a member in good stand­
ing of International Union, United Steelworkers, Local 
1466.

(C) Plaintiff Clyde Humphrey is a black male citizen 
of the United States and a resident of the City of Besse­
mer, Alabama. He is and has been employed by the 
defendant, Pullman Standard, at its plant in Bessemer, 
Alabama and is a member in good standing of Inter­
national Union, United Steelworkers, Local 1466.



20

V.
(A) Defendant, Pullman Standard, is a Producer of 

railroad cars, doing business in the State of Alabama, 
and the City of Bessemer. The Company operates and 
maintains offices and plants and is an employer within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-(b) or (c) in that 
the Company is engaged in an industry affecting com­
merce and employs at least twenty-five persons.

(B) Defendant, International Union, United Steel­
workers and Local 1466 is a labor organization within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (d) and (c) in that 
United Steelworkers, Local 1466 is engaged in an in­
dustry affecting commerce and exists, in whole or in part, 
for the purpose of dealing with the Company concern­
ing grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, 
and other terms or conditions of employment of the 
employees of the Company at its plants and other fa­
cilities located in various cities and states throughout the 
United States, including employees of the Company’s 
plants and other facilities in and around the City of 
Bessemer in the State of Alabama. The Local 1466,
U.S.W. has at least twenty-five members,

(C) The International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO, is the parent organization 
of the certified collective bargaining agent for the em­
ployees in the machinists’ bargaining unit. It has at 
least twenty-five members.

(D) Defendant Local 372, International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is the 
certified collective bargaining agent for the employees 
of the machinists’ bargaining unit at Pullman Standard’s 
plant in Bessemer, Alabama.

VI.

(A) All matters regarding compensation, terms, con­
ditions and privileges of employment of the plaintiffs



21

and the class they represent have been, at all times 
material to this action, governed and controlled by col­
lective bargaining agreements entered into between the 
International Union, United Steelworkers, and the Com­
pany and/or local supplemental agreements (hereinafter 
referred to as “ agreements” ) entered into between Local 
1466 and the Company. Under and pursuant to the 
terms of the aforementioned agreements, the defendants 
have established a promotional and seniority system, the 
design, intent and purpose of which is to continue and 
preserve, and which has the effect of continuing and 
preserving, the defendants’ policy, practice, custom and 
usage of limiting the employment and promotional op­
portunity of Negro employees of the Company because 
of race or color.

(B) Defendant Local 1466 has failed and refused to 
properly represent its black members with respect to the 
matters herein complained of.

(C) The International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and its local affiliate, Local 
372 are subject to service of process herein and their 
joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction under 
the subject matter of this action. In their absence, com­
plete relief can not be accorded among those already 
parties. In addition, the said International Union and 
its local affiliate have an interest relating to the subject 
of this action and is so situated that the disposition of 
this action in their absence may as a practicable matter 
impair or impede their ability to protect that interest. 
Plaintiffs do not seek any monetary damages against 
these defendants.

(D) Plaintiff Clyde Humphrey alleges that he was 
discharged by the company on November 10, 1972 be­
cause of his race or color. He filed a grievance concern­
ing this discharge; and his grievance was upheld by an



22

arbitration award dated November 20, 1973. However 
the award failed to accord back pay to plaintiff Hum­
phrey for the period of his unlawful discharge. Plain­
tiff Humphrey had earlier filed a charge of discrimina­
tion against the Company and Local 1466 of the Steel­
workers, alleging that he was discriminatorily assigned 
to perform various duties. We received a notice of his 
right to sue on March 27, 1974.

VII.

(A) The effect, purpose and intent of the policies and 
practices pursued by the Company have been and con­
tinue to be to limit, segregate, classify and discriminate 
against Negro workers at its Bessemer, Alabama plant 
in ways which jeopardize the jobs of and tend to deprive 
the said Negro workers of equal employment opportuni­
ties and otherwise adversely affect their status as em­
ployees because of their race and color.

VIII.

(A) The Company discriminates against blacks in 
awarding temporary assignments by giving blacks less 
desirable jobs and depriving them of training in the 
more desirable jobs.

(B) The Company maintains a policy, practice, cus­
tom, or usage of segregated facilities and of utilizing 
physicians with segregated facilities.

(C) The Company discriminates against blacks in its 
hiring policies.

IX.

Plaintiffs and the class they represent are qualified 
for promotions and for training which could lead to 
hiring and promotions on the same basis as such op­
portunities are provided for white employees.



23

X.

(A) On various dates, including but not limited to the 
following: October 15, 1969, May 11, 1970 and July 
31, 1970, plaintiff Louis Swint filed written charges, 
under oath, with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission alleging denial by defendants of plaintiffs’ 
rights under Title VII of the “ Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

(B) On or about September 22, 1971, plaintiff Swint 
was advised that he was entitled to institute a civil ac­
tion in the appropriate Federal District Court within 
thirty (30) days of receipt of said letter.

(C) Neither the State of Alabama nor the City of 
Bessemer has a law prohibiting the unlawful employ­
ment practices alleged herein.

XI.

At all times material herein Local 1466 and the In­
ternational Union, United Steelworkers of America have 
been the certified recognized representatives under the 
National Labor Relations Act of the plaintiffs and the 
class they represent and, as such, have the duty, under 
the National Labor Relations Act, to act impartially and 
fairly represent the interests of plaintiffs and the class 
they represent.

XII.

Defendants International Union, United Steelworkers 
of America and Local 1466 have violated and continue 
to violate their duty of fair representation imposed on 
them by the National Labor Relations Act in that they 
have acquiesced and/or joined in the unlawful and dis­
criminatory practices and policies complained of herein 
and they have failed to protect the Negro members of 
the Company from said discriminatory policies and prac­
tices. The Company has knowingly participated in or



24

acquiesced in said violation of the duty of fair rep­
resentation.

XIII.

After the service of charges herein upon the Com­
pany, it implemented a scheme of systematic harrassment 
and intimidation of plaintiff Louis Swint, as a reprisal 
for his having filed the said charges. This policy led to 
the ultimate discharge of plaintiff Swint by the Pullman 
Company, in retaliation for the charges he filed.

XIV.

Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no plain, 
adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the 
wrongs alleged herein and this suit for a preliminary 
and permanent injunction is their only means of secur­
ing adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the class they rep­
resent are now suffering and will continue to suffer ir­
reparable injury from the defendants’ policies, practices, 
customs and usages as set forth herein.

XV.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court 
to advance this case on the docket, order a speedy hear­
ing at the earliest practicable date, cause this case to be 
in every way expedited and upon such hearing to :

1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a 
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the 
named defendants, their agents, successors, employees, 
attorneys and those acting in concert with them and 
at their direction from continuing to abridge the rights 
of plaintiffs in respect to compensation, terms, condi­
tions and privileges of employment and from limiting, 
segregating and classifying plaintiffs and the class they 
represent in ways which deprive plaintiffs and other 
black persons of this class of equal employment oppor­



25

tunities and from otherwise adversely affecting their 
status as employees because of race and color.

2. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent a 
declaratory judgment that the actions of defendant com­
plained of herein violate the rights of plaintiffs and the 
class they represent guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

3. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent re­
lief requiring defendants to make whole, by appropriate 
reinstatement and immediate promotion, backpay, and 
otherwise, all such individuals who have been adversely 
affected by the practices and the policies herein com­
plained of from the time of defendants’ wrongful denial 
of employment to the present.

4. Allow plaintiffs, their costs herein, including rea­
sonable attorneys fees as provided in Section 706 (k) of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and 
other additional relief as may appear to the Court to be 
equitable and just.

/&/ U. W. Clemon 
U. W. Clemon 
Adams, Baker & Clemon 

Suite 1600 - 2121 Building 
2121 Eighth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



26

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Civil Action No. 71-955-S
Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on behalf of 

themselves and others similarly situated, 
vs Plaintiffs,

Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama, et al.,
Defendants.

Jul. 8, 1974

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND 

AREOSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO

Comes now defendant International Union of Ma­
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and for an­
swer to the amended complaint filed herein, states as 
follows:

1. Defendant denies each and every allegation of the 
amended complaint, except Paragraphs V(C) and VI 
(C), which are the only portions of said complaint which 
contains any allegation concerning defendant.

2. As to the allegations of Paragraph V(C) ,  defend­
ant admits that it has at least 25 members, but states 
that its Local Lodge, rather than the International Union, 
is actually the certified collective bargaining agent for 
various employees at Pullman-Standard.

3. As to the allegations of Paragraph VI (C), defend­
ant admits those allegations, except to the effect that it 
is not the bargaining agent as explained above.

4. Defendant denies that it has violated Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or the Civil



27

Rights Act of 1866. Defendant further denies that it 
has discriminated against any member of the Machinists’ 
bargaining unit or any other black employee of Pullman- 
Standard.

5. Defendant submits to the jurisdiction of this Court, 
understanding that no claim for monetary relief of any 
kind is made against it, and offers to abide by any de­
cree which may be entered by this Court.

6. Defendant reserves the right to call witnesses at 
the trial, although it has not had sufficient knowledge of 
the claims against it to enable it to comply with the 
Court’s pretrial order requiring the listing of witnesses 
ten days prior to the trial.

Cooper, Mitch &  Crawford

By /s /  John C. Falkenberry
John C. Falkenberry

409 North 21st Street 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 
328-9576

Attorneys for Defendant



28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CA 71-P-955

SWINT, ET AL.

V.

Pullman-Standard, et al.

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 
HELD JUNE 4, 1974

1. Counsel. The following counsel were present: For 
plaintiffs, U. W. demon; for defendant Company, C. V. 
Stelzenmuller; and for defendant Steelworkers Union, 
John C. Falkenberry.

2. Class Action. The parties have made known cer­
tain facts to the court and have agreed that such facts 
may be considered by the court without formal hearing 
otherwise required under Rule 23. On the basis thereof, 
the court finds and concludes that the prerequisites of 
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2)  are satisfied and that this 
action may hereafter be maintained on behalf of all 
black persons who are now or have (within one year 
prior to the filing of any charges under Title VII) been 
employed by defendant Company as production or main­
tenance employees represented by the United Steel­
workers. The court concludes that individual notifica­
tion of class members is unnecessary in this action under 
Rule 23(b) (2) but that it would be appropriate for a 
general notification of the pendency of this litigation to 
be posted at the premises of the Company. Counsel for 
the parties shall attempt to draft such a notification and 
in the event of disagreement the same shall be presented 
to the court for its approval.



29
3. Parties. Leave is hereby granted to the plaintiffs 

to add as additional party defendant (insofar as the re­
lief requested may involve or infringe upon the pro­
visions of such Union’s collective bargaining agreement 
with the Company, it being noted however that no re­
quest for monetary relief is being sought against said 
Union) the appropriate entity of the International As­
sociation of Machinists. Leave is also granted for the in­
tervention as a party plaintiff of an employee by the 
name of Humphrey for the presentation of his claim 
under Section 1981 with respect to his discharge and 
subsequent reinstatement without back pay.

4. Issues. The following charges are made by the 
plaintiffs as violations of either Title VII or of Section 
1981:

(a) That a system of departmental seniority, 
even with changes made pursuant to a corrective 
action program with the Department of Labor, 
nevertheless perpetuates the effects of past discrimi­
nation in the assignment of black employees to gen­
erally less desirable departments. This issue sub­
sumes the following assertions by the plaintiffs:

The transfer provisions under the agreement 
with the Department of Labor apply to only 
four departments; the transfer rights which are 
granted under such plan are inadequate by rea­
son of the failure to provide red-circle rates and 
by reason of the restriction to a single exercise 
of such rights; and such rights of transfer do 
not apply to jobs in the machine shop repre­
sented by the I AM. (The issue relative to the 
machine shop may have to be severed for sub­
sequent trial depending upon the joinder, serv­
ice, and availability and readiness of the IAM 
with respect to the trial date already scheduled.)

(b) The Company has discriminatorily made as­
signments of functions to persons serving in the



30
same job classification based on race and has dis­
crim inatory assigned persons on the basis of race 
to “ lateral” job classifications having the same job 
class.

(c) The Company has discriminatory failed ^o
promote black production and maintenance employees 
to supervisory and managerial positions. ^

(d) As individual, non-systemic, claims, the Com­
pany has discharged the plaintiff Swint in violation 
of Title VII or Section 1981 and has discharged 
(without giving back pay or reinstatement) the po­
tential Intervenor Humphrey in violation of Section 
1981.

The plaintiffs seek back pay or other monetary relief 
incident to the foregoing claims of discrimination; but 
such issue is severed for trial, if  necessary, at a subse­
quent date. The plaintiffs, in view of proposals made 
by the defendants in conference, do not intend to chal­
lenge the practice by which daily assignments and va­
cancies have not been publicly posted; but reserve the 
right to present such an issue at trial if the conference 
proposals by the defendants prove to be unsatisfactory.

The defendants deny the several charges of discrimina­
tion set out above and in addition assert defenses in part 
based upon applicable statutes of limitation and the 
effect of arbitration awards.

5. Discovery. The parties are given leave to proceed 
with further discovery provided the same be completed 
at least ten days prior to trial. The parties shall at least 
ten days prior to trial exchange a list of witnesses and 
documents which they anticipate utilizing at trial.

Done this the 4th day of June, 1974.

/ s /  Sam C. Pointer, Jr.
Sam C. Pointer, Jr.
United States District Judge



31

TRANSCRIPT OF 1974 TRIAL 

BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

[2] Mr. John C. Falkenberry, of the firm Cooper, Mitch 
& Crawford, 409 North 21st Street, Birmingham, Ala­
bama and Messers. D. Frank Davis and C. V. Stelzen- 
muller, of the firm Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & 
Murray, Birmingham, and Mr. Franklin B. Synder, 200 
South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, appear­
ing on behalf of the Defendants.

* * * *

[3] PROCEEDINGS

July 8,1974 10:00 A.M.
MORNING SESSION

THE COURT: * * *
*  *X- *  *

[6] The Grand Lodge of Machinists has been named 
as a party defendant in this case for the limited pur­
pose that a part of the relief sought by the plaintiffs 
may involve some modification to the collective bargain­
ing agreement between the Machinists and the defend­
ant company. The Grand Lodge has indicated that it 
submits to the jurisdiction of the Court for that limited 
purpose, not agreeing that any such changes are due to 
be made, but acknowledging merely that the Court would 
have power to make such a change if it otherwise [7] 
was merited by the evidence in the case, and subject 
further to the fact that the local lodge of the Machinists 
which apparently is the certified labor union at Pullman- 
Standard, has not been made as a party defendant and 
the plaintiff is however given leave, if it desires, if they



32

desire to do so, to add the local lodge as an additional 
party defendant, again only for the limited purpose that 
relief in the form of some modification of the collective 
bargaining agreement is a part of the requested relief 
which the plaintiff seeks. That amendment, however, if 
one be made, should be made I think during this week 
so we do know what the status is.

* * * *
[400] MS. PRIVETT: I call Harvest Morgan.

MR. HARVEST MORGAN,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

*  *  *  *

[402] Q All right. What is your job class now?
A I’m in the Job Class 11, rivet driver.
Q All right. Mr. Morgan, have you ever served as 

a temporary foreman?
A I most certainly has. In 1971 we were put on 

the night shift, and I was promoted to supervisor to run 
the sides and ends job. And I run that job close to two 
years. * * *

* * * *
[424] Q As a matter of fact, Mr. Morgan, you 
couldn’t make production if everybody just chose up sides 
like on a ball team, could you, as to where they want to 
work?

A No. You couldn’t make production if you didn’t 
have the men in the right place and right men to do the 
job, you wouldn’t.

* * * *
[832] MISS PRIVETT: I call Tommy Williams, Jr.

MR. TOMMY WILLIAMS, JR.,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

* * * *



33

[860] Q So a fellow just doesn’t go all over that side 
and do whatever strikes his fancy, he sticks to what he 
is doing, he sticks to one thing usually?

A Say he do what now?
Q I say, any member of that twelve man team that 

you have, they kind of do the same thing on each seal, 
don’t they?

A Well, they have a job there to do, right.
[861] Q That’s right. If I am working on this end, 
the next time the seal comes down there I wouldn’t go 
down to the other end and start riveting down there, 
would I, if I was a riveter? You sort of do the same 
thing over and over again?

A I just stated that everybody has got a job, you 
know. You have got a job and they got another job on 
the other end doing the same thing.

Q And that is part of the teamwork, isn’t it, that 
piece after piece you can get more production because 
you get used to doing that exact little set of duties, isn’t 
that right?

A What do you mean by used to doing?
Q What I am saying is, if you swap with another 

man, it will take you a little while to get used to what 
he is doing.
[862] A Well, for some people. See, I can do it all. 
For some people, you know, that haven’t did, these people 
they mess around sometimes, you know, but you just 
don’t get a man and you know, just like you are saying, 
just move around from one job. He got a specific job, 
I got a job, and sometime occasionally I would go on 
the other end of the department and drive a few rivets.

Q Kind of like a football team, people work together ; 
they do different things, and they do them together. As 
the work together, they get better, don’t they?

A That is right.
Q And that is the way it works?
A All the time, I guess.



34

Q And if you had every man to be able to switch 
from end to quarterback, that would mess everything up?

A All depends upon whether you know what you 
would call understanding about what is going on all the 
time.

Q That is right.
Everybody perfect, it woudn’t matter, but [863] they 

are not, are they?
A That is right, you are right.
Q I don’t think any of us are?
A Not any of us; capable of making mistakes, big 

mistakes.
Q That is another thing, you kind of reduce the 

number of mistakes if you are sticking to bucking these 
particular set of holes or particular set of rivets. It 
avoids mistakes because you get real familiar with what 
you are doing on that side sill, don’t you?

A Yes.
Q And if there was some system set up where every 

day you just choose up sides and say, somebody would be 
working in the paint department wants to come down 
and work in the steel construction, it wouldn’t be likely 
to be something that would work out very well, would it?

A All depends on if he is familiar with the job.
* * * *

[865] Q Well, let me ask you if it isn’t true that
[866] at sometimes you say you start up a new order 
and you get assigned and you have some green men with 
your crew, or let’s just say you might even have a bunch 
of men that didn’t know each other and hadn’t worked 
together, takes you a while before you can get through 
by 1:30 or 12 o’clock; doesn’t it?

A Right.
Q At the very outset of a new order, if  you have 

green men that you are not familiar with, might be good 
men, but not familiar with working with each other, you 
could just see how every day maybe you get through a



35

little bit earlier with your daily quota and you get down 
to where after the order starts, you get down to where 
you are really cutting the mustard then, is that true? 

A That is right.
Q Sometimes if you start out an order and some 

green men are on there, you might have to work until 
3:15?

A Right. * * * *
[1200] MR. CLEMON: Mr. Lewis Pinkard.

MR. LEWIS PINKARD,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

* * * *
Q Where do you now work?
A Pullman-Standard.

[1201] Q When did you go to work for Pullman?
A July,’62.

* * * *
[1203] * * * What is your present position if any with 
the union?

A Grievance committeeman.
* * * *

[1212] Q When were the bath houses integrated at 
Pullman?

A Well, they were left open for blacks and whites in 
1968, but they weren’t integrated yet.

Q Prior to 1968 had the bath houses at Pullman been 
segregated?

A Right. # * * *
[1226] MR. STELZENMULLER: We call Mr. Don
Frederick.

MR. DONALD D. FREDERICK 
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:



36

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER) What is your 

full name?
A Donald D. Frederick.
Q And Mr. Frederick, you are employed by Pullman- 

Standard?
A Yes.
Q Out at the Bessemer plant?
A Yes.
Q What is your position there?
A Assistant plant manager.
Q How long have you held that position, Mr.

Frederick?
A I have held this position nine years. I have been 

with the company eighteen.
* * * *

[1227] Q Mr. Frederick, just by way of introduction
of this, can you give us a general description of the 
Pullman-Standard car plant in Bessemer and a descrip­
tion of the general nature of the manufacturing process 
and any unusual characteristics of it?

A Yes, I think I can.
Q Would you tell the Court what type of plant that 

is, and any characteristics of the production process in 
general that are significant to its operating methods?
[1228] A Well, at the present time the plant employs
approximately 2800 people in 22 departments. These de­
partments, although unrelated in the individual skills 
required collectively form the team at Pullman-Standard. 
The skill and efficiency demonstrated in each individual 
department in accomplishing its own tasks determine how 
well the team functions in the one common goal of build­
ing a quality freight car to the railroad specifications 
and maintain customer satisfaction in a fairly high com­
petitive field. The freight car manufacturing business 
is unlike any other business of its size. It functions more



37

like a small contract fabricator, and that each order or 
lot as we refer to them is estimated, bid and engineered 
to meet the individual railroad specifications for the car 
to be built. This carries on through the manufacturing 
operation also in that jib, engineering, die engineering, 
manufacturing, planning, the application of labor by 
rate department, varies with each order. The orders will 
vary in size from possibly 25 cars to several thousand. 
The Bessemer plant is probably [1229] as versatile a 
plant as there is in the world. It has built many types 
of cars, such as boxcars, flat cars, gondolas, open hopper 
car, covered hopper cars, as well as too many variations 
of these basic cars to mention here. The variety of cars 
and the fact that cars are custom built makes it impos­
sible to stock any quantity of material or to build any 
cars for inventory. It just becomes economical and a 
physical impossibility. The freight car building business 
is unique compared to other businesses of its size in 
that it has only one customer, the nation’s railroad. 
Thus as the railroads go pretty much as the way Pull­
man-Standard goes. I believe anyone who has worked 
for, lived in the vicinity of a car plant can attest to the 
cycle and the inherent layout problems it creates. Also 
the reverse problem, the procurement of people in build­
ing a quality car. This external cyclical nature is fairly 
evident to everybody around it which is created mainly 
by the purchasing power, lack of or intensity of, but I 
believe a more subtle internal cycle of labor movement 
is I believe—this is even greater [1230] than the exter­
nal cycle. These occur at any production level, even with 
peak order book and peak production. This is a very 
difficult cycle to try to explain verbally, but I would like 
if you bear with me, I will attempt to explain it as sim­
ply as I can. The cycle, or more appropriately the cycles 
that the applications and reduction of labor on any given 
lot of cars will simulate, is that of possibly three sign 
waves, displacement in time and varying in magnitude.



38

The first wave starts on the steel erection track, and 
if you will try to picture this, it starts at—in a valley 
in terms of labor application due to the changeover of 
the track on jigs, fixtures, handling equipment from the 
requirements of one type of car to the requirements of 
the following car. This time can vary from a few hours 
to several weeks, but usually is done within one week. 
The magnitude of the wave begins to build as the new 
car proceeds down the production line through in the 
case of a boxcar some eighteen positions and will con­
tinue to build in magnitude [1231] until such time the 
car reaches the set task or number of cars produced for 
that day, for each day.

The second wave in a case of a boxcar is generated at 
the wood erection where any interior equipment that is 
required in the car is installed. This wave starts in a 
valley approximately a week to ten days after the steel 
erection starts. This valley is created by both the differ­
ence in the cars and the absence of cars having been 
produced on the steel erection track during a change­
over. The same type of build up in manpower then 
occurs into up to 24 positions as had occurred on the 
steel track. In recent years with the exodus of wood, 
these people have been mainly welders and steel erectors.

Then the third wave which comes about after cars 
start to come out of the erection— the wood erection area 
which normally would follow it by a week to ten days 
ago, start when the cars go successively through the shot 
blast, prime paint, finish paint, stencil, and finally come 
to the shipping track. Now what does all this mean? 
[1232] It means say in the case of the welding depart­
ment, which is our largest department, it is approxi­
mately 800 people, that the manpower requirements for 
this department are being generated by three different 
waves with peaks and valleys occurring at different 
times. The combination of these waves again in terms 
of the welding department generates a wave of require­



39

ments that is rather irregular in nature when you com­
bine the three waves. Considering also that it takes ap­
proximately 100 cars started on erection track before 
the first car is on the shipping track, we can get some 
idea of what the frequency of this wave can be. Many 
times when the first car hits the shipping track, the last 
car is on the erection track. This represents as descrip­
tively as I can put it what happens in terms of one line 
of cars.

To look at the overall picture, we must understand the 
phenomena is occurring on two other lines at the same 
time with none of the peaks and valleys coinciding. Here 
again in the case of the welding department, if all the 
waves generated by the three tracks were combined, they 
[1233] would generate a very complicated wave of re­
quirements in terms of manpower, both in magnitude 
and chain. And to explain the many movements of man­
power to satisfy production needs, this is a difficult chart 
or graph to ever draw because it spells out magnitude, 
but it dosen’t spell displacement between waves in terms 
of labor. I imagine probably these rapid changes in man­
power recognized years ago by the labor and manage­
ment are why the five day and two day clauses were 
injected into our labor contract. The five day clause 
provides that if a man also is laid off due to a track 
change, he need not be placed in an already producing 
order if he is to be recalled within five days. The two 
day provision allows two days to place a man on a pro­
duction order if he is not to be recalled in two days— in 
five days. Both of these clauses tend to smooth out the 
movement of manpower and level out a few of the ripples 
caused by these waves and create a less effect on quality 
and production when movements do occur. I think these 
are probably the biggest single items that are unique to 
the car building business. I don’t know of another indus­
try [1234] that operates as singly, yet has to operate so 
totally on a production line basis. I believe this will de­



40

scribe the uniqueness of the shop, and I would like at 
this time if the Court would permit, to walk through a 
pictorial plant tour in which we can maybe explain some 
of the physical characteristics of the car plant.

*  *  *  *

[1392] MR. STELZENMULLER: Call Mr. F. B.
Snyder.

FRANKLIN B. SNYDER,

having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows:

* * *

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
* * * *

Q By whom are you employed?
A Pullman, Inc.
Q In what capacity and in what office, what city?

[1393] A I’m a lawyer with their law department in 
Chicago.

Q And since you have been in the law department 
there since September, 1962, have you had any particular 
area of responsibility?

* * * *
[1394] A I have filed and worked with the various 
plants in our company in the different divisions, the de­
velopments under the Civil Rights Act, and the various 
executive orders which are imposed upon government 
contractors. I have attended reviews, compliance reviews. 
I have worked on the affirmative action plans and pro­
grams for different locations.

Q And let’s see, your company has a plant, car build­
ing plant in Butler, Pennsylvania, does it not?

A Yes, sir.



41

Q How many blacks are employed there presently, 
if you know?

A At present there are about nine out of the entire 
force.
[1395] THE COURT: I am having difficulty hearing.

A I am sorry, Judge.
THE COURT: You will have to speak up.
A About nine Negro employees on the Butler pay­

roll.
Q The plant is somewhat smaller than Bessemer but 

has a payroll upward of a thousand, I take it?
A Oh, yes, it is larger than that.

*  * •  *  *

[1461] July 16,1974 9 :00 A.M.

MORNING SESSION

THE COURT: I believe there is to be an announce­
ment on behalf of one of the union defendants.

MR. FALKENBERRY: Yes, sir, may it please the
Court.

On Friday an amended complaint was served on Mr. 
Horn who is the president of Machinists Local Lodge 
372, if Your Honor please. I represent that local lodge, 
although I have not formally filed an answer, I will do 
so if I might just state for the record my appearance 
in the event that I may want to propound questions on 
behalf of that local as well as the international.

THE COURT: Mr. Snyder, are you ready to resume
the stand?

MR. SNYDER: Yes, sir.
* * * *

[1463] Q And it was after the union was unable to 
satisfy the government regarding its proposals that it 
indicated finally that it would not sign the same agree-



42

ment that the company had signed in January of 1969? 
A That’s right, sir.

* * *

[1464] CROSS EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. CLEMON) Mr. Snyder, what specifi­
cally were the proposals that were made by the union in 
1969?

A As a negotiating move in relation to the govern­
ment, the union suggested a form of transfer possibilities 
which did not entail taking plant seniority anywhere in 
the plant, but it was a somewhat broader proposal in the 
sense of offering transfers to employees than the govern­
ment ended up with.

Q Was the union in effect proposing that a member 
of the affected class who wished to transfer should be 
allowed to transfer to any department and enter that 
department as a new man?

A I don’t believe that it was expressed in terms of 
an affected class at all.

* * * *
[1465] Q But once they entered the new department, 
they would enter in effect as a new man at the bottom 
of the seniority list for that department?
[1466] A That was the suggestion, yes, as covered 
obviously Negroes and whites.

Q Were there any other seniority proposals which 
were made by the union at that time?

A I don’t remember any.
* * * *

[1472] Q Now, Mr. Snyder, is it a fair statement 
that in 1972 the OFCC Agreement is virtually identical 
to the 1969 agreement?

* * * *



43

Q Red circling was eliminated from the 1972 agree­
ment?

A That is right. It is not in that agreement.
* * * *

[1770] MR. STELZENMULLER: Call Mr. Debrow.

HARRY E. DEBROW, SR.,

being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER:) State your 
name, please, sir?

A Harry E. Debrow, Sr.
Q And where are you employed, sir?

[1771] A Pullman Standard, Bessemer.
Q How long have you been employed by Pullman 

Standard?
A Thirty-three years.

* * * *
What is your present position, Mr. Bebrow?
A Assistant Contract Compliance Officer.

*  *  *  *

[1882] Q When did the Union the steelworkers union 
organize that plant or begin to represent employees, if 
you know, Mr. Debrow?
[1883] A As I recall, it was in the early 40’s.

Q Did you have any personal knowledge about that? 
A Yes. I was involved in organizing it.
Q All right.
For the United States Steelworkers?
A Right.
Q And what took place there, Mr. Debrow, were 

negroes active in organizing that plant?
A Negroes organized Local 1466.



44

Q Did you have— in other words, the movement be­
gan with Negroes, to your knowledge?

A It did.
Q And did you have an election out there conducted 

by the National Labor Relations Board?
A That is to determine we would have the bargain­

ing rights, with that election.
Q I take it they had one election for the machine 

shop people, which the machinists wanted, and another 
for the other P & M employees?

A I believe that is about the gist of it.
Q Following the election in which the steelworkers 

won for that group, right?
[1884] A They won the right to bargain, represent—  
people they are representing today.

Q Have Negroes taken an active part and held offices, 
stewardships, committeemen and all that, ever since?

A To my knowledge, every office in there has been 
filled by Negroes at one time or another, and this orga­
nizing of it was all Negro. We didn’t have a single 
white officer.

Q Let me ask you if the stewards in the plant have 
not been proportionately Negro anyway, or largely Negro 
ever since 1941?

A Well, I couldn’t see been proportioned one way or 
the other. We have had a lot of each race.

Q Not been any particular distinction, been a lot of 
both races?

A Been a lot of both races from time to time.
* * * *

[1964] MR. HENRY VANN, JR.,

being first duly sworn, testified as follows :
* * * *

[1967] Q Now what is your present job?
A You mean at the present?



45

Q Right now.
A Foreman, A Foreman.
Q In the welding department?
A Welding department.

45* *  *  *

[2001] Q Mr. Vann, you had quite a bit of ups and 
downs in the work force out there, don’t you?

A That’s right.
Q And you see on this chart here, that pretty il­

lustrates how the plant can go down almost less than a 
hundred men and on up to 2,800?

A Right.
Q And this means that there is a lot of times when 

new forces come in that have to be placed in different 
departments and positions, don’t they?

A That’s right.
*  *  *  46-

[2002] Q Based on your experience in training as a 
welder, and in your observation of the operations in the 
welding department, Mr. Vann, do you have an opinion 
as to what would happen to— what effect would there 
be on the operations in that welding department if on a 
recall of a large number of men they were placed 
throughout the plant according to how long they had been 
in the plant and without respect to departments?

A You couldn’t operate it.
Q You don’t think the welding department could op­

erate it?
A No.

45- *  45- *

[2010] Q On the track who decides where a man is 
going to weld? Say here is the foreman and here is a 
railroad car, here is a position.

A The foreman designates, you know, that he is sup­
posed to weld. Each man is supposed to have a certain 
amount of welding on each car.



46
Q And in that— in this situation are there some 

people who—well, does he try to maintain [2011] the 
same position?

A Try to balance it.
Q He don’t swap them around every day or anything 

like that?
A No, you can’t do that.
Q Why is that?
A Well, if you do that, you just can’t get anything 

done. See, we have a certain amount of time. Say for 
instance we have sixteen car lineup, you have thirty 
minutes at each car, and say for instance if you are on 
the roll-over, and you have got a man doing this welding, 
probably corner caps, you know, welding on top of the 
car, or welding the back part of it, you just can’t keep 
swapping around because you would be losing time.

Q Isn’t it kind of like a football team, you have 
eleven good players, can all play football, but if they 
get used to playing end, you can’t switch them to quarter­
back?

A Right. You can’t designate a certain area for 
them to work where every man would know his job.

Q Mr. Vann, you have seen many cars built [2012] 
out there, haven’t you?

A Oh, yes.
Q Isn’t it true that when you first start up a line, 

even if you have got all experienced people, and there is 
a period where you are not making production, why is 
that?

A Well, first of all in building cars, sometime we get 
an order that we have never, you know, had at this 
particular car.

Q It is a little different?
A It’s a little different. It’s your different items and 

so forth that goes on it. And each foreman, you know, 
has a set of blueprints, manpower that he is supposed to 
use, and he has to in turn show the individual what that 
he has to do to the car.



47

Q And does it take each individual a little time to 
get just used to doing that particular operation?

A It does.
Q And after awhile I guess he gets to where he can 

just make production and do it real easy?
A That’s right.
Q And start on another order, the same man, [2013] 

he is going through the same thing again?
A That’s right.
Q And if you have say ten different positions, you 

have kind of got to move at a pace of the slowest man 
as far as pulling cars is concerned?

A That’s right.
Q So Mr. Vann, if you were to switch these things 

around very frequently, is that why you’re saying you 
couldn’t make production?

A You couldn’t.
# * * *

[2018] Q So, the more you can keep a fellow doing 
the same general type work, the less you are going to 
have cripples, as a rule?

A That is true.
Q And we are talking now about not just doing weld­

ing, but talking about specific welding assignments, and 
making that car?

A Right.
*  *  *  *

[2135] MR. STELZENMULLER: Mr. Dick Snyder. 

RICHARD C. SNYDER,

having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows :

*  #  *  -K*

Q By whom are you employed?
A Pullman-Standard.



48

Q In what capacity and what place?
A My present capacity is supervisor of engineering 

at Camp Carry Technical Center in Hammond, Indiana.
Q What is done up there at this Technical Center?
A One of the functions which I am involved is [2136] 

the engineering of freight cars. My particular function 
is the design and engineering of boxcars.

Q Now, how long have you been working for 
Pullman?

A 23 years. I started January, 1951.
Q Where was that?
A At the Pullman Standard Plant in Michigan City, 

Indiana.
Q What kind of plant was that or is that plant?

[2137] A Well, the plant no longer exists, but at the 
time I started it was primarily a boxcar plant.

Q Making boxcars, the same general nature as those 
at Pullman?

A Yes, sir.
Q And what kind of work were you doing in Janu­

ary of ’51?
A I started in January, ’51 in the jig and fixture 

design department, engineering work.
Q And this involved making fixtures for use out in 

the plant, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, your work took you out in the 

plant- a good deal of the time?
A Yes, sir. All the time I was at Michigan City, 

I was out in the plant quite a bit. At least once a day 
generally speaking.

Q Now tell me Mr. Snyder, do you— are you gen­
erally familiar with the way jobs were assigned up there 
and the general nature of the seniority system?

A I had the general knowledge because I had to
[2138] work with the people of the overall assignments 
of jobs, not the detailed classifications and so forth, but



49

I knew at Michigan City the general assignments, yes, 
sir.

Q How did people—did they have a union contract?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did people apply the seniority, that is in what 

kind of grouping?
A Well, Michigan City, they had a departmental 

seniority, and each job was bid on by each individual 
and this was done on a daily basis.

Q As I take it, like if a vacancy occurred one day, 
then you would have—

A Every morning before the track started, there was 
a bidding procedure that took place prior to the start 
of the production track, to get the force established, and 
start their daily tasks.

Q And did this procedure consume much time?
A It was very disorganized. In fact, generally speak­

ing the track never started at 7 :00. It was usually 8 :00, 
8:30 before the track [2139] generally started.

Q Now did they have more than one erection track 
up there?

A They had two erection tracks. And at times there 
was one track going and at times there were two tracks 
going.

Q When they changed from one track to two track 
operations, did this have any effect on the complexity of 
getting organized?

A Well, it complicated the situation where you would 
get employees— production employees going from one 
track to obtain the better jobs.

Q Whatever they picked out?
A That’s right. Through their seniority and their 

bidding of the job.
Q Let me ask you if you know was— were many 

mistakes made, that is many controversies arise about 
this thing?



50

A It varied. We had quite a few cripples. Especially 
at the end, prior to the closing of Michigan City plant, 
our quality was greatly affected by this, and we spent a 
great deal of [2140] additional labor repairing cripples.

*  -X* *  *

[2142] Q Was it an unusual number of chalk marks 
per car, compared to, say, Bessemer, if you have been 
there?

A Well, actually I think the quality— if you are 
asking me about the quality, I think the quality was—  
prior to the closing of Michigan City, was very bad, and 
much worse than anything I have ever seen at Bessemer.

* * * *
[2189] Q Well, now, Mr. Glaser, if you were to adopt 
a form or something similar to what they had at Michi­
gan City, do you believe you could maintain the quality 
of product that you have at Bessemer?

A No, sir, I do not; I would have to say that based 
on our experience with the Michigan City Plant, that 
were we in a labor situation that pre- [2190] vailed at 
the Michigan City Plant, we would not be able to main­
tain our share of market that we enjoy now.

*
[3498] MR. FALKENBERRY: I call Mr. Ross Ham­
monds.

ROSS D. HAMMONDS

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Will you state 
your name, please, sir, and where you work?

A Ross D. Hammonds. I work at Pullman-Standard, 
Bessemer, Alabama [3499] Q Mr. Hammonds, how 
long have you worked for Pullman-Standard?

A Twenty-eight years and four months.



51

Q Prom that I take it you went to Pullman about 
1946?

A Right.
Q Would that be correct?
A February 4, ’46.
Q When you first went to Pullman, Mr. Hammonds, 

was there a union there?
A It was.
Q And what union was that, please, sir?
A Well, it was United Steelworkers, but it wasn’t 

fully organized as it is now.
Q Well, it was back—was it back when they had 

the old steelworkers acting committee under the old CIO?
A That’s right.
Q Did you join the union when you went?
A Sure I joined. You had to slip around and sign 

cards from different ones that was carrying union cards 
around to become a member.

Q And you did slip around and sign a union [3500] 
card sometime in 1946, after you began at Pullman?

A March of ’46.
Q All right, sir. At that time in 1946, Mr. Ham­

monds, was— do you recall whether the union was com­
posed primarily of black employees at Pullman or pri­
marily of white or of about an equal mixture; what was 
the racial composition of the union at that time?

A It was integrated.
Q Would you say there were more blacks than whites 

or more whites than blacks in the union?
A There was more whites. There were three white 

and two black in the top five.
Q That is officers. I’m just talking about the mem­

bership.
A Oh, the membership as a whole?
Q Was it mostly black?
A It was mostly black at that time.



52

Q What I understand you to say about three whites 
and two blacks, were you referring to the—

A Elected officers.
Q Elected officers at the union?
A Right.

[3501] Q To your recollection, Mr. Hammonds, has 
that always been the case about the officership in Local 
1466, that is, that they have been integrated from 1946 
when you first began to work at Pullman?

A As far as I know up until ’73 of July.
Q Who were the union officials back when you joined 

the local?
A When I joined the local, the president was J. M. 

Herring. He is white. Vice president was Perry Thomp­
son, black. Recording secretary was John Hubbard, 
which was white. The financial secretary was Pete Quick 
which was white. The treasurer was— I mean the finan­
cial secretary— I want to back up on that, financial sec­
retary which was black was Gus Dickerson, Sr.

Q Right.
A And the treasurer was Pete Quick, white.
Q Now over the course of your membership in the 

steelworkers, Mr. Hammonds, and in the course of your 
employment at Pullman-Standard, have you held both 
elected and appointed offices in Local 1466?
[3502] A I have. V i

Q Tell us if you will what the first position you ever
held was and when that was, if you can remember 
exactly what it was?

A In 1952 I was elected by the members of the steel 
erection department as shop steward.

Q How long did you serve just as a shop steward?
A Twelve years.
Q After you were a shop steward, did you hold other 

offices?
A I was appointed by the local union executive 

board to carry out an unexpired term due to Mr. Charlie



53

Robinson’s death as trustee in February of ’64 to June 
of ’64, which I was elected then as vice president of the 
local union.

Q All right. How long or how many terms—let me 
put it that way, did you serve as vice president of Local 
1466?

A Three terms.
Q During the time that you were vice president, did 

you hold another office concurrently with the vice 
presidency?
[3503] A I held chairman of the grievance commit­
tee, and also carried out an unexpired term of the late 
president, Perry L. Thompson.

Q Now Mr. Thompson died, I believe, in 1972?
A Right.
Q Would that be correct?
A Right.
Q And so you served as president from the time of 

his death until when?
A Well, from the time that he retired I had taken 

over as of the first of April, ’72.
Q All right. And you served then until the next—
A Until the election of ’73.

* * * *
[3510] MISSPRIVETT: No objection.

MR. CLEMON: No objection.
THE COURT: It’s received.
Q Mr. Hammonds, after that award was handed 

down by Mr. McCoy and after black employees started
to move into the riveter jobs, was that award given
some sort of plantwide application, that is, to other 
departments to let helpers and other people who had 
not bid on the higher rated jobs move up?

A Well, I will say it was a ground breaker for the 
entire plant.

Q Well, would it be fair to say, Mr. Hammonds, 
that it is that grievance that put Mr. Wormley in the



54

position at least of being able to try out and be a 
riveter at the time he was telling us about when he 
testified?

A It would be.
Q Now, Mr. Hammonds, let me move considerably 

forward in time from 1964 until 1972, and ask you about 
a grievance that arose then. Was there a time when 
the union had a grievance pending and the company 
made a proposal to merge several departments as a 
means of settling that grievance?
[3511] A Yeah. They did have— settle a grievance.

Q Tell the Court if you would, please, sir, just what 
that grievance was about.

A As I recall the plant went down in ’72.
Q Was that—
A Due to a layoff.
Q That has been referred to several times here.
A Sure. And they had to change over to the machine 

shop at this time, and they laid everybody off except 
for a few employees. During the time that the plant 
was down there was two automatic saws that was in­
stalled in the forge department. And they were moved 
from the forge department to the punch and shear de­
partment. On our return back to work, we protested 
the moving of the saws, either asked the men that were 
formerly operating in the forge shop would go down 
and operate them in the punch and shear area.

Q And take their seniority with them?
A That’s right. Well, the company said they had a 

right to move the machines, and it was a dispute about 
the men being moved. So the company [3512] came up 
with a proposal that they would move the men out of 
the wheel and axel forge shop and I believe it was the 
hook-ons in the truck shop, steel miscellaneous, all merge 
into and wherever seniority list falls it would be inserted 
between the individuals in that department. So bringing 
that proposal to the committees, we discussed very lengthy



55

in a meeting there, and I notified with the notice in the 
plant to be at the union meeting the next meeting. And 
as explained to some of them in the plant, what the 
meeting was about and of course they passed the word 
around. At our arrival at the union meeting, 4 :00 Tues­
day, in the afternoon, we proposed to the members:—

Q Let me interrupt you right there and ask you 
whether or not the size of the crowd at the meeting, was 
it larger than usual, smaller than usual or what was 
the size of the attendance at that particular meeting?

A It was a packed house, I would say. Majority of 
them were black.

Q That was my next question.
Do you have any recollection about whether [3513] 

there were more blacks present than whites?
A There were more blacks present than whites.
Q Tell the Court, if you will, what happened then? 

You were beginning to say that the officers I guess or 
did you do it personally yourself made the presentation 
to the local?

A I made the presentation to the local myself.
Q You did that yourself?
A Right.
Q Did you explain what the company had proposed, 

that is, to dovetail the seniority from all those depart­
ments?

A We did.
Q All right. Was there a decision made by the en­

tire membership present as to the company’s proposal 
to dovetail seniority in those departments?

A Well, time would allow for all members that, were 
present to have a chance to ask questions and speak 
their opinion. And after doing that, each committee got 
up and explained the part that they wanted to help 
explain. Then a motion was carried allowing them to 
vote on whatever way they [3514] wanted to be. The 
democratic organization motion was made, seconded by



56
another member, and carried, and it was voted unani­
mous to turn the proposal from the company down be­
cause they didn’t want the merger in there.

Q In other words, the decision was unanimous?
A Right,
Q And the decision was to reject the proposal to 

merge the department in slot seniorities?
A Right.
Q After that time and after that meeting, Mr. 

Hammonds, I take it that really is the last time that 
that question has come up at least in that large a 
context?

A That is the only time.
* * * *

[3534] Q You testified at one time there was a vote 
down there on merging. Do I understand it right that 
the vote was to merge or dovetail the seniority in some 
five departments?

A It was.
Q Or did it just include crane jobs in those depart­

ments or was it everything in those five departments?
A That was where the men were going— operating 

machines. Since we were grieving about the saw job, 
which was a machine, then the company proposed to the 
union to merge the forge shop, the wheel and axel de­
partment, along with the hook-on and cranemans and 
steel miscellaneous departments and place their seniority 
wherever allotted in those departments. That is what 
the vote was about.

Q Wasn’t it to—was it to put this punch [3535] 
and shear department and press department in there too 
or just the cranemen or what?

A Well, it was all combined.
Q All to be combined?
A Now punch and shear, press and miscellaneous, 

forge and wheel and axel were proposed to be merged 
with those other three named.

* * * *



57

[3535] Q * * * And I’d better ask you this, was there 
any kind of advance notice to the members that that 
would be voted on, and you say there was a big crowd?

A Sure. Wasn’t a written notice, but it was a no­
tice what we put up saying everybody be at the union 
meeting at 4:00 Tuesday, such and such a date.

* * * *
[3536] Q Were any opinions expressed in that meeting 
for or against a merger of departments?

A There was only one individual that I can recall, 
and he is dead now, that spoke in favor of moving it 
over, because if he come over there in that department, 
he would get a chance to work a little bit longer than 
the rest of— than he had been. But that was only one 
man.

Q Was he black or white?
A He was white.

* * * *
Q In other words, one white man spoke out for it 

because— and you feel that he had something to gain 
personally by a merger?

A Right. * * * *
[3537] Q And did other people speak out in opposition 
to the proposal?

A Well, about-— out of about five hundred and some­
thing members, I would say that were present at that 
particular meeting, we will say about twenty of them 
spoke their opinion about it which was against them.

Q What was the basis that—of their understanding 
why, why were they against it?

A Because they didn’t want a man to come in and 
be slotted over them, and cut off, and they would have 
a chance to be cut off where they haven’t been. In other 
words, they were being moved out of some line of promo­



58

tion where it would— so they would remain in the senior­
ity bracket as it is now.

Q In other words, they indicated that they had some 
interest in maintaining that seniority system the way 
it was?

A Right.
* * * *

[3609] Q Now, Mr. Hammonds, did y’all explore with
[3610] the company various proposals, different ways to 
merge departments at that time or was it all just based 
on one proposal?

A No. As I recall we set down and discussed it 
several times, and we drawed up two different types of 
operations there we thought might have worked, and 
after looking into it, it wasn’t satisfactory enough, so 
we discarded. And then we finally came up with the 
assistance of the international and local union with this 
proposal here, the company did. So we had taken it 
before the rank and file.

Q So you say when you’re working out some prelimi­
nary proposals, you were considering what would be 
feasible in an operation, didn’t you?

A Sure. I was looking at the long time service 
employees in that department, and I also was looking 
at the advantage and disadvantage in it.

Q But I mean in making a proposal that made any 
sense, you didn’t go and look say at— talk about con­
fining— let me think of a good example. The paint ship­
ping track department say with the power house depart­
ment, that would have no— make [3611] no sense much, 
would it?

A It wouldn’t have any connection as far as the 
operation comparison.

Q People wouldn’t know a thing about the other op­
eration, would they?

A That’s right.



59

Q So you were really considering things that would 
be operationally feasible that you did have enough rela­
tion that people could be reasonably be expected to 
qualify on any other jobs and all that, isn’t that what 
you were after at that time?

A In other words, to make it more understandable 
were that if a man was a press operator or any kind 
of machine operator in the forge shop, then he goes to 
the press department, he would still have knowledge of 
operating the machine. Now you couldn’t handle—we 
thought we couldn’t handle it, take a man out of the 
press department and send him to the electric depart­
ment when he never has had any knowledge of electricity.

Q Certain kinds of mergers of seniorities you men­
tioned just make no sense as far as building cars?
[3612] A Right.

Q That is obvious, isn’t it, Mr. Hammonds?
A That’s right.
Q You know that the company— do you know whether 

or not the company has proposed other types of modifica­
tions in the seniority system such as combining all the 
transportation functions, that is, the rail, you know the 
rail, what they call the railroad department, all the 
cranes in the place, the forklift trucks and steel mis­
cellaneous, storage in the steelyard, do you know that 
has been proposed in the collective bargaining?

A Well, under the forklift operators where they were 
in the transportation department which would come 
under— they were steel storage. So they tried to com­
bine them all in the transportation department which 
would come under the head of crane operator hook-on 
and all that.

Q You know that that has been a proposal that has 
been made?

A That’s right.



60

Q And one operational advantage you can have the 
same crane operator go from one end to the other 
[3613] which they don’t do now, is that right?

A That’s right.
Q All that has been discussed, hasn’t it?
A While I was in there, it has.
Q Let me ask you if the union and the union mem­

bership hasn’t uniformly opposed this for the same reason 
they are opposing any such merger?

A We have uniform proposals to them, and also we 
have rejected some of the proposals that they brought 
up.

Q It has been proposed and talked about different 
kinds of mergers, but somebody is always going to get 
hurt, and they—the membership won’t go along with it, 
that is true, isn’t it, Mr. Hammonds?

A Well, you can’t help everybody and you can’t hurt 
everybody.

Q That’s right. And let me ask you, Mr. Hammonds, 
if you go to tinkering with that from the operational 
standpoint, you have got to view whether it makes sense 
to help you build cars, don’t you?

A All that has to be taken into consideration.
Q From the employees’ standpoint, you have got to 

figure out what affect it is going to have on the [3614] 
employees, don’t you?

A Right.
Q And both of those are very important in that, 

aren’t they?
A Sure.
Q And let me ask you this, those things, when they 

come up, they have been the subject of serious discus­
sions and as far as you are concerned good faith efforts 
by both union and the company to work something out?

A Yeah. Anything that we thought was—would cause 
any trouble legally, what I mean from—we may have 
to face the EEOC or the office of compliance department



61

as far as the union is concerned, and we would contact 
the international along with the international lawyer 
representative of the firm to see the best way to go.

* * * *
[3616] Q How many times has the question of a mer­
ger of departments been put to the full membership of 
the union per vote?

A What do you mean? By entire program?
Q That’s right.
A We have had it come up ourselves I would say 

about three times.
Q And have the votes on these mergers been unani­

mous?
A The one that we did have, sure.
Q There have been no opposition votes whatsoever? 
A No one voted against.

X - -X - *  *

[3840] RALPH JONES,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

*  *  *  *

Q Where do you work?
A Pullman-Standard.
Q When did you come to work there?
A 1945.

*  *  #  -X-

[3850] Q Was there an occasion, Mr. Jones, when you
discussed the possibility of your transfer to another de­
partment?

A Yes.
Q What department was it?
A To the maintenance department.
Q How did that discussion come about?
A I was asked by Mr. Debrow would I consider be­

ing a millwright, and I told him I would. And later on 
I was called down to the office, and Mr. Crotwell told me



62

that the two presidents [3851] wouldn’t agree for me 
to interchange unions. And I in turn went back and 
talked to Mr. Miles about it. And he said he didn’t know 
anything about it. He didn’t even know that I was be­
ing considered for millwright. So then I was called back 
down again and asked to be a mechanic. I had prior 
schooling as a mechanic. And Mr. Crotwell, after he—  
after the conversation was over, he told me, he said, 
well, Ralph, I’m sorry, but they just won’t let you in­
terchange unions, but if you find me a good nigger that 
is mechanical minded and can learn, you write him a 
note, and I will hire him.

# * * *
[3853] Q Let me ask you if Mr. Crotwell said any­
thing to you when you were discussing going to be a 
millwright to the effect that you—-about what your sen- 
nority status would be if you did go over there?

A He told me, said you could work over there two 
years, and I understood that part that is in the contract 
and all of that was well and good with me, and after I 
indicated that I didn’t mind that, then he told me that 
the president wouldn’t allow me to interchange local 
unions.

Q That is all he told you was he just would not allow 
you to change unions?

A That is what he told me, that the two presidents 
had agreed upon.

Q And he didn’t say anything about seniority in 
connection with changing union membership or [3854] 
anything like that?

A Oh, yeah. He told me that I would be the youngest 
man in the department on the seniority list. Well, I 
understood that in the beginning.

* * * *
[3861] Q Now, you told Mr. demon about your at­
tempt [3862] to get a millwright job and your conver­



63

sation with Mr. Crotwell, Mr. Jones. As I understand 
your testimony, Mr. Crotwell tried to put it on the two 
local unions as the reason to tell you why you couldn’t 
get that job by telling you that the local presidents would 
not let you switch unions?

A That’s right.
Q Do you know whether or not as a matter of fact 

the company has anything to do with whether or not an 
employee belongs to one union or another?

A No, I don’t.
Q In fact, Mr. Minor indicated to you that it really 

wasn’t any of the company’s business who belonged to 
what union, didn’t he?

A No. He said he didn’t know, even know anything 
about it.

Q He just said that he— did he tell you that he had 
not told Crotwell that you couldn’t switch unions and 
he didn’t know you were interested in the job?

A That’s right.
Q Did you ever talk to Mr. Ed Davidson then, who 

was the I AM local president?
[3863] A No, I didn’t.

* * * *
[4045] THE COURT:

Also, I think it would be of some value if the Court 
indicated of record what appear to be the races or colors 
of the various witnesses who have testified. Sometimes 
that is brought [4046] out in examination and sometimes 
it is not. If counsel would follow with me on my nota­
tions as I read them into the record, and if there is any 
questions about it, you can correct my notation. These, 
I believe, are in the order in which they have testified: 
J. R. Hudson, white; Henry Thompson, black; Alvester 
Braxton, black; Sam Maxwell, black; Matthew Hunter, 
black; Spurgeon Seals, black; Kie Bates, black; Edward 
Lofton, black; Richard Davis, black; Hugh Wilson, black; 
Edgar Davis, black; Harvest Morgan, black; Samuel



64

Thomas, black; John Hampton, black; Jessie Heard, 
black; L. D. Holmes, black; Albert Johnson, black; Junior 
Wormley, black; Leonard Lewis, black; Katrina Mitchell, 
black; Fred Baltimore, black; Tommy Williams, black; 
Willie James Johnson, black; Clyde Humphrey, black; 
Louis Swint, black; Louis Pinkard, black; Donald Fred­
erick, white; Franklin Snyder, white; Clyde Robertson, 
white; Harry Debrow, black; Henry Vann, black; John 
London, black; Dick Snyder, white; Thomas Blazer, 
white; Miles Ward, black; Walter Whitehurst, white; 
Paul Walker, black; James Moss, white; F. R. Rodriguez, 
white or [4047] Spanish surnamed; Austin Cain, white; 
Alfred Moorer, black; Bill Eddings, white; William Poe, 
white; Colin Clemons, white; Leullen LeShoure, black; 
Harry Crane, white; Fred Cottrell, black; William J. 
Harris, white; George Johnston, white; Fred Prince, 
black; Fount Hammock, white; Fred Hull, white; Ross 
Hammonds, black; Albert Wolff, white; Gerald McCar- 
roll, black; Willie Lewis, black; Ralph Jones, black; 
Theodore Sparks, black; Willie Thomas, black; Samuel 
Thomas, black; Walter Hinton, black; Eugene McGee, 
black; Robert Northfleet, black; Bobby Arnold, black; 
A. C. Cole, black; Virgil Northfleet, black; George Wash­
ington, black; William C. Harris, black; L. D. Holmes, 
black; and according to my records this covers each of 
the witnesses.

* *



65

EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT 1974 TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 55
COMPARATIVE JOB CLASSES OF 

PULLMAN-STANDARD PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 
EMPLOYEES WITH MORE THAN SIX YEARS OF 

SENIORITY AS OF JUNE, 1973

Non-Incentive 
Hourly 

Wage Rate
Job Class As of 10/1/73 Whites Blacks Total

1 $3,635 0 6 6
2 3.635 0 4 4
3 3.733 1 0 1
4 3.831 10 63 73
5 3.929 3 45 48
6 4.027 67 302 369
7 4.125 6 50 56
8 4.223 31 82 113
9 4.321 25 43 68

10 4.419 450 57 507
11 4.517 29 68 97
12 4.615 29 14 43
13 4.713 30 2 32
14 4.811 0 1 1
15 4.909 27 2 29
16 5.007 15 3 18
17 5.105 1 0 1
18 5.203 23 1 24
20 5.399 6 0 6

753 743 1497

% of Black employees earning less than $4.25 hourly
(Job Class 8 or below) : 74.1%
% o f White employees earning more than $4.40 hourly
(Job Class 10 or above) : 80.7%
% of Black employees earning more than $4.40 hourly
(Job Class. 10 or above) : 19.9%
% of White employees earning less than $4.25 hourly
(Job Class 8 or below) : 15.8%



66
COMPANY EX. 309

Pullman-Standard— Bessemer ;
Swint and Johnson vs. Pullman-Standard

Racial Statistics on P&M Steelworkers Union 
Officers, Committeemen and Stewards from 1965 
to Date

Bessemer— April 4,1973
CONFIDENTIAL 
MR. F. B. SNYDER:
In accordance with your memorandum of February 14, 
1973, I am sending the attached information concerning 
the above subject.
This report shows that there was a majority of Negro 
Union Department Shop Stewards during the period of 
time involved. In addition, Mr. J. Mautman Herring, 
who was President of the local Steelworkers Union for 
approximately 22 years and a Union Committeeman for 
approximately 30 years, has stated that there were more 
Negro Union Shop Stewards during the many years he 
served in an official capacity for the Steelworkers Union.
The report also shows that the office of President, Chair­
man of the Grievance Committee, Acting President, Vice 
President, Financial Secretary and Grievance Committee­
man has been held by a Negro.

/ s /  J. R. Hudson 
J. R. Hudson

Bessemer— March 12,1973
Mr. J. Mautman Herring, Badge No. 2633, who was 
President of Local Union No. 1466 (Steelworkers) for 
approximately 22 years, and a Union Committeeman for 
approximately 30 years, made the statement that during 
that period of time, there were more Negro Union Shop 
Stewards than Caucasian Union Shop Stewards.

/ s /  J. R. Hudson



67

1965
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

28 13 15

1966
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

28 13 15
Through June, 1967

Officers Caucasian Negro
5 3 2

Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro
28 13 15

From July, 1967
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

32 9 23

1968
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

32 9 23

1969
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

32 9 23

Through June, 1970
Officers Caucasian Negro

5 3 2
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

32 9 23



68

From July, 1970
Officers Caucasian Negro

6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

33 10 23

1971
Officers Caucasian Negro

6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

39 13 26

Through February, 1972
Officers Caucasian Negro

6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

39 13 26

From March, 1972
Officers Caucasian Negro

6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

39 13 26

1973
Officers Caucasian Negro

6 3 3
Shop Stewards Caucasian Negro

40 14 26



69

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS— 1965
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 

COMMITTEE
Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring C

VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds; N

FINANCIAL SECRETARY 
Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson N

TREASURER
Badge No. 2651 Earl Walls C

RECORDING SECRETARY 
Badge No. 2306 John H. Porter, Jr. C

SHOP STEWARDS— 1965
WELDING DEPARTMENT 

Badge No. 2853 
Badge No. 2734 
Badge No. 1654 
Badge No. 1655 
Badge No. 2641 
Badge No. 1637 
Badge No. 1643 
Badge No. 2872

Wilburn L. Lanier 
Jack Posey 
Henry Vann, Jr. 
Neal Bell 
Robert C. Grimes 
Robert Mosely 
Gus Levins 
Felton H. White

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 692 0 . J. Gilbert

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No. 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No. 3358 James C. Blackmon

PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS 
Badge No*. 849 Sam West
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker
Badge No. 508 William Jordan

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1859 William F. Wilkes

3 
o

 3
 

o
o

o
 

3
 

3 
o

3
3

o
3

3
o

o



70

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton N

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson N

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson N

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon C
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter N
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr C

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N

WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge C

PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright C

POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs C

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS— 1966

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring C
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY 

Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson N
TREASURER

Badge No. 2651 Earl Walls C
RECORDING SECRETARY 

Badge No. 2306 John H. Porter, Jr. c



71

SHOP STEWARDS:— 1966

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1839 William F. Wilkes

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope

WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge 

PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright

POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2853 
Badge No. 2734 
Badge No. 1654 
Badge No. 1655 
Badge No. 2641 
Badge No. 1637 
Badge No:. 1643 
Badge No. 2872

Wilburn. L. Lanier 
Jack Posey 
Henry Vann, Jr. 
Neal Bell 
Robert C. Grimes 
Robert Mosley 
Gus Levins 
Felton H. White

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 692 0 . J. Gilbert

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No. 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No. 3358 James C. Blackmon

£
£

 
£ 

£
 

a
 

0
2

0
 

&
 

G
 

O
 

O
 

G
 G

 £ £ G
 £

 £ G
 

£ 
£

 
G

O
O



72

P U N C H , S H E A R  A N D  P R E S S  D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 849 
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 508

Sam West 
Glenn Acker 
William Jordan

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1967

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 2633 Mautman J. Herring
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Badge No. 963 Gus Dickerson
TREASURER

Badge No. 2651
RECORDING SECRETARY 

Badge No. 2306

Earl Walls 

John H. Porter, Jr.

SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH JUNE, 1967

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2853 
Badge No. 2734 
Badge No. 1654 
Badge No. 1655 
Badge No, 2641 
Badge No, 1637 
Badge No, 1643 
Badge No. 2872

Wilburn L. Lanier 
Jack Posey 
Henry Vann, Jr. 
Neal Bell 
Robert C. Grimes 
Robert Mosley 
Gus Levins 
Felton H. White

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 692 O. J. Gilbert

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3347 Leon Bridges
Badge No, 3350 Milton Baughn
Badge No, 3358 James C. Blackmon O

O
O

 
^

 
Z

 
o

^
o

^
^

o
o

 
a

 
a

 
2

 
Z

 
o



73

PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS 
Badge No. 849 Sam West
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker
Badge No. 508 William Jordan

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 Manuel Cleveland
Badge No. 1839 William F. Wilkes

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 771 Lister Walton

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Robinson

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1353 Cleotha Wilson

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 4596 James B. Harmon
Badge No. 426 Willie Carter
Badge No. 4547 Leroy Carr

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N

WOOD MILL DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2568 Wilmer T. Aldridge C

PLANT PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3614 Clayton W. Wright C

POWER HOUSE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3301 Gerald Beggs C

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS FROM JULY, 1967

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N

o
^

o
 

sej
 

szj
 

s;
 

izs 
a; 

'Z
o

'Z



74
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
RECORDING SECRETARY 

Badge No.. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C

SHOP STEWARDS FROM JULY, 1967

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2872 
Badge No. 2703 
Badge No. 1676 
Badge No. 1619 
Badge No. 2970

Felton White 
Horace Logan 
Joe Gray 
Fayette Dudley 
R. L. Benton

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3325 W. B. Hartley 
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott

PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Balge No. 563 
Badge No. 530 
Badge No. 508 
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 2541 
Badge No. 1102 
Badge No. 503

Willie Simmons 
William Jones 
Willie Jordan 
Glen Acker 
J. P. Williams 
Henry Clayton 
Joe Carlton

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones

WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William. Winder
Badge No.. 2178 Ed Beck

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No.. 1867 
Badge No.. 1376 
Badge No. 948 
Badge No. 307

Manual Cleveland 
Cleo E. Campbell 
Robert L. Williams 
Craig Paulding

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope N

3
^

3
3

 
0

^
0

 
3

2
; 

3
3

0
0

3
3

3
 

o
o

 
3

3
 

o
3

3
o

o



75

PAINT DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson
Badge No. 436 Herman Torrence

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE! 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS— 1968

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor 
RECORDING SECRETARY

Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel

SHOP STEWARDS— 1968

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2872 
Badge No. 2703 
Badge No. 1676 
Badge No. 1619 
Badge No. 2970

Felton White 
Horace Logan 
Joe Gray
Fayette Dudley 
R. L. Benton

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover 3 

3 
o

 3
 3

 O
 a

 
o

 
o

 
3 

^
 

o
 

■ 
z

 
s; 

z 
z 

3
 3



76

M A IN T E N A N C E  D E P A R T M E N T
Badge No. 3325 
Badge No. 3474

PUNCH, SHEAR AND 
Badge No. 563 
Badge No-. 530 
Badge No-. 508 
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No, 2541 
Badge No, 1102 
Badge No, 503

W. B. Hartley 
W. J. Sco-tt

PRESS DEPARTMENTS 
Willie Simmons 
William Jones 
Willie Jordan 
Glen Acker 
J. P. Williams 
Henry Clayton 
Joe Carlton

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones

WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No, 2178 Ed Beck

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 
Badge No, 1376 
Badge No. 948 
Badge No, 307

Manual Cleveland 
Cleo E. Campbell 
Robert L. Williams 
Craig Paulding

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Nathanial Pope-

Henry Moo-re 
Willie Johnson 
Herman Torrence-

Badge No. 346
PAINT DEPARTMENT 

Badge No. 486 
Badge No, 484 
Badge No. 436

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 923 Theado-re Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff N

3 
%

 
'Z

'Z
'Z

 
%

 
2

 2
 3

 2
 

o
^

o
 

o
o



77

UNION OFFICERS— 1969

U N IT E D  S T E E L W O R K E R S  O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N  A N D  M A IN T E N A N C E  E M P L O Y E E S

L O C A L  U N IO N  N O . 1466

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY 

Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
RECORDING SECRETARY 

Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C

SHOP STEWARDS— 1969

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2872 
Badge No. 2703 
Badge No. 1676 
Badge No. 1619 
Badge No, 2970

Felton White 
Horace Logan 
Joe Gray 
Fayette Dudley 
R. L. Benton

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No, 1811 Calvin Glover

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3326 W. B. Hartley 
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott

PUNCH. SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 530 
Badge No. 508 
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No, 2541 
Badge No. 1102 
Badge No. 503

Willie Simmons 
William Jones 
Willie Jordan 
Glen Acker 
J. P. Williams 
Henry Clayton 
Joe Carlton

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones a;

a;
 

a; 
^ 

o 
o 

a; 
3

 a;
 

o
o

 
o

^
a

;o
o



78

Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No. 2178 Ed Beck

W H E E L  A N D  A X L E  D E P A R T M E N T

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 
Badge No. 1376 
Badge No. 948 
Badge No. 307

Manual Cleveland 
Cleo E. Campbell 
Robert L. Williams 
Craig Paulding

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope

PAINT DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 486 
Badge No. 484 
Badge No. 436

Henry Moore 
Willie Johnson 
Herman Torrence

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 Thomas. L. Ratcliff N

UNITED STEELWORKERS. OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1970

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 3326 Milton M. Minor C

VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N

FINANCIAL SECRETARY 
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee N

TREASURER
Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C

RECORDING SECRETARY 
Badge No. 2010 C. E. Kimbrel C

3
3

2
 

2
 

2
2

2
2

 
o

2
o



79

SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH JUNE, 1970

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 2872 
Badge No. 2703 
Badge No. 1676 
Badge No. 1619 
Badge No. 2970

Felton White 
Horace Logan 
Joe Gray 
Fayette Dudley 
R. L. Benton

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 1811 Calvin Glover

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 3326 W. B. Hartley 
Badge No. 3474 W. J. Scott

PUNCH. SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 530 
Badge No. 508 
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 2541 
Badge No. 1102 
Badge No*. 503

Willie Simmons 
William Jones 
Willie Jordan 
Glen Acker 
J. P. Williams 
Henry Clayton 
Joe Carlton

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1103 Ralph Jones

WHEEL AND AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rogers
Badge No. 1266 William Winder
Badge No. 2178 Ed Beck

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1867 
Badge No. 1376 
Badge No. 948 
Badge No. 307

Manual Cleveland 
Cleo E. Campbell 
Robert L. Williams 
Craig Paulding

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 346 Nathanial Pope

PAINT DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 486 
Badge No. 484 
Badge No. 436

Henry Moore 
Willie Johnson 
Herman Torrence 3

3
3

 
3 

3
3

3
3

 
o

 3
 o

 
3

3
 

3
3

o
o

3
3

3
 

G
O

 
3

3
 

o
3

3
o

o



80

S T E E L  S T O R E S  D E P A R T M E N T
Badge No. 923 Theadore Miller N
Badge No'. 1162 Donald Foreman N

TRUCK DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 770 Thomas L. Ratcliff N

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

UNION OFFICERS FROM JULY, 1970

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 1603 Perry L. Thompson N
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY

Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN

Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins C

SHOP STEWARDS FROM JULY, 1970
WELDING DEPARTMENT

Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell N
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder N
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy C
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas C
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton N

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry N
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard N

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris N
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox N



81

Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge No. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens

M A IN T E N A N C E  D E P A R T M E N T

PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 580 
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 555 
Badge No. 1102

Glenn Acker 
Robert Murry 
William Simmons 
Robert Sanders 
Henry Clayton

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers

FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canales.
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson

PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENTS 
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4970 William C. Boyd
Badge No. 2958 Henry Hogg o

n
 

o
3

 
2

 
3

 
2

 
Z

a
Z

 
Z

 
^

2
 

Z
o

 
q

 
a

Z



82

UNION OFFICERS— 1971

U N IT E D  S T E E L W O R K E R S  O F  A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N  A N D  M A IN T E N A N C E  E M P L O Y E E S

L O C A L  U N IO N  N O . 1466

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 1603 Perry L. Thompson N
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY

Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN

Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins 

SHOP STEWARDS— 1971

C

WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell N
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder N
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy C
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas c
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton N
Badge No. 3566 Earl Baldwin C
Badge No. 4720 L. E. Walker c
Badge No. 3530 Arval L. Hulsey c

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge No. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens o

3
 

3
3

 
3

3
3



PUNCH, SHEAR AND PRESS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2483 Glenn Acker C
Badge No. 580 Robert Murry N
Badge No. 563 William Simmons N
Badge No. 555 Robert Sanders N
Badge No. 1102 Henry Clayton N

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers C

FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds C
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter N

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor N
Badge No. 1868 0. J. Herndon N
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns N
Badge No. 1832 Henry B. Moore N

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy N

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore N
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canoles C
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson N

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman N

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff N

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson N

PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENTS
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas N
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright C

83

IN S P E C T IO N  D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam  C. Boyd C
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg C



84

UNION OFFICERS THROUGH FEBRUARY, 1972
PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 

COMMITTEE

U N IT E D  S T E E L W O R K E R S  O F  A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N  A N D  M A IN T E N A N C E  E M P L O Y E E S

L O C A L  U N IO N  N O . 1466

Badge No. 1603 

VICE PRESIDENT

Perry L. Thompson 
(Retired February, 1972)

N

Badge No. 982
FINANCIAL SECRETARY

Ross Hammonds N

Badge No. 1022 
RECORDING SECRETARY

Willie Key N

Badge No. 2010 
TREASURER

Chesley E. Kimbrel C

Badge No. 3331 
COMMITTEEMAN

Henry L. Taylor C

Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins c

SHOP STEWARDS THROUGH FEBRUARY, 1972
WELDING DEPARTMENT

Badge No. 1655 Neal Bell
Badge No. 1621 Dennis McGruder

(Deceased 10-24-72)
Badge No. 2851 J. C. Kennedy
Badge No. 4946 H. M. Thomas
Badge No. 1027 Fred Hampton
Badge No. 3566 Earl Baldwin
Badge No. 4720 L. E. Walker
Badge No. 3530 Arval L. Hulsey

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge N o. 1773 Eugene M cGee
Badge N o. 3377 B illy Joe Pickens

o
o

o
^

o
o

 
Z

Z



85

P U N C H , S H E A R  A N D  P R E S S  D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No, 2483 
Badge No. 580 
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 555 
Badge No-. 1102

Glenn Acker 
Robert Murry 
William Simmons 
Robert Sanders 
Henry Clayton

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers

FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No-. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No, 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No, 1832 Henry B. Moore

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No, 486 
Badge No. 4550 
Badge No. 484 
Badge No, 472

Henry Moore 
Orville Canoles 
Willie Johnson 
Edward Lofton

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson

PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No, 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No, 3614 Clayton Wright

IN S P E C T IO N  D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam  C, Boyd
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg Q

O
 

a
Z

 
3

 
2

 
Z

 
Z

Z
a

Z
 

Z
 

Z
Z

Z
Z

 
Z

o
 

o
 

Z
Z

Z
Z

o



86

UNION OFFICERS FROM MARCH, 1972

U N IT E D  S T E E L W O R K E R S  O F A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N  A N D  M A IN T E N A N C E  E M P L O Y E E S

L O C A L  U N IO N  N O . 1466

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 982 Ross Hammonds N
VICE PRESIDENT

Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman N
FINANCIAL SECRETARY 

Badge No. 1022 Willie Key N
RECORDING SECRETARY 

Badge No. 2010 Chesley E. Kimbrel C
TREASURER

Badge No. 3331 Henry L. Taylor C
COMMITTEEMAN

Badge No. 298 William T. Adkins c

SHOP STEWARDS FROM MARCH, 1972

WELDING DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1655 
Badge No. 1621

Badge No. 2851 
Badge No. 4946 
Badge No. 1027 
Badge No. 3566 
Badge No. 4720 
Badge No. 3530

Neal Bell 
Dennis McGruder 
(Deceased 10-24-72) 
J. C. Kennedy 
H. M. Thomas 
Fred Hampton 
Earl Baldwin 
L. E. Walker 
Arval L. Hulsey

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge N o. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge N o. 3377  B illy Joe Pickens o

2
 

2
3

 
2

2
2

 
o

o
o

2
o

o
 

3
2



87

P U N C H , S H E A R  A N D  P R E S S  D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 580 
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 555 
Badge No. 1102

Glenn Acker 
Robert Murry 
William Simmons 
Robert Sanders 
Henry Clayton

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 2172 Jack Rodgers

FORGE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4585 Jerald Hammonds
Badge No. 1305 Matthew Hunter

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No>. 1832 Henry B. Moore

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 486 
Badge No. 4550 
Badge: No. 484 
Badge No. 472

Henry Moore 
Orville Canoles 
Willie Johnson 
Edward Lofton

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson

PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1689 Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright

IN S P E C T IO N  D E P A R T M E N T
Badge N o. 4970 W illiam  C. Boyd
Badge N o. 2958 H enry H ogg

C
N

O
Q

 
0

3
 

3
 

3
 

3
 

^
^

0
2

 
3

 
3

a
 

O
 

3
3

3



88

U N IT E D  S T E E L W O R K E R S  O F  A M E R IC A
P R O D U C T IO N  A N D  M A IN T E N A N C E  E M P L O Y E E S

L O C A L  U N IO N  N O . 1466

UNION OFFICERS THROUGH JUNE, 1973

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE GRIEVANCE 
COMMITTEE

Badge No. 982

VICE PRESIDENT
Badge No. 1162

FINANCIAL SECRETARY 
Badge No. 1022

RECORDING SECRETARY 
Badge No. 2010

TREASURER
Badge No. 3331

COMMITTEEMAN
Badge No. 298

Ross Hammonds N

Donald Foreman N

Willie Key N

Chesley E. Kimbrel C

Henry L. Taylor C

William T. Adkins c

SHOP STEWARDS'—1973

WELDING DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1655 
Badge No. 2851 
Badge No. 4946 
Badge No. 1027 
Badge No. 3566 
Badge No. 4720 
Badge No. 3530 
Badge No. 220

Neal Bell 
J. C. Kennedy 
H. M. Thomas 
Fred Hampton 
Earl Baldwin 
L. E. Walker 
Arval L. Hulsey 
Larry McCullough

STEEL ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1022 Willie Key
Badge No. 1024 Horace Perry
Badge No. 1005 Louis Pinkard

STEEL CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 545 Samuel Harris
Badge No. 651 Elijah Knox
Badge No. 322 A. G. Richardson

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1773 Eugene McGee
Badge N o. 3377 Billy Joe Pickens 0
2

 
o

o
o

o
S

J
o

o
^



89

P U N C H , S H E A R  A N D  P R E S S  D E P A R T M E N T S
Badge No. 2483 
Badge No. 580 
Badge No. 563 
Badge No. 555 
Badge No. 1102

Glenn Acker 
Robert Murry 
William Simmons 
Robert Sanders 
Henry Clayton

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT
Jack Rodgers

Jerell S. Hammonds 
Matthew Hunter

Badge No. 2172 
FORGE DEPARTMENT 

Badge No. 4585 
Badge No. 1305

STEEL MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 1364 James Taylor
Badge No. 1868 0 . J. Herndon
Badge No. 318 Clarence S. Hearns
Badge No. 1832 Henry B. Moore

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 306 Edward Dancy

PAINT & SHIPPING TRACK DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. 486 Henry Moore
Badge No. 4550 Orville Canoles
Badge No. 484 Willie Johnson
Badge No. 472 Edward Lofton

STEEL STORES DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 1162 Donald Foreman

TRUCK DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 770 T. L. Ratcliff

MISCELLANEOUS STORES
Badge No. 1814 Simmie Roberson

PLANT PROTECTION & JANITORS DEPARTMENT 
Badge No. Willie Thomas
Badge No. 3614 Clayton Wright

INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Badge No. 4970 William C. Boyd
Badge No. 2958 Henry Hogg

O
fr'ZZ'Z, 

O 
o

z
 

Z
Z

Z
Z

 
Z 

0
0



PULLMAN- STAN DARD 
B e s s e m e r  Plant

C
O

M
PA

N
Y E

X
. 351



91

TRANSCRIPT OF 1978 TRIAL
[17] MR. CLEMONS: Your Honor, we would now like
to call as our first witness Mr. Thomas.

SAMUEL THOMAS, JR.,

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. CLEMONS:) Mr. Thomas, will you 

state to the Court your full name?
A Samuel Thomas, Jr.
Q Where do you live, Mr. Thomas?
A Route 4, Box 55.
Q Are you employed by Pullman-Standard?
[18] A Yeah.
Q When did you go to work for Pullman?
A ’46, January 2.
Q Was that at the Bessemer plant?
A Bessemer plant.
Q Are you a member of a union?
A Yeah.
Q What union are you a member of?
A 1466.
Q How long have you been a member of the union? 
A Ever since ’46.
Q Have you attended union meetings?
A Yeah.
Q Mr. Thomas, was there a time when union meet­

ings were segregated?
A Yeah.
Q Would you describe how the segregation worked? 
A Well, on the picnic they give on Labor Day, well, 

we will have our picinics would be in different places. 
The whites would be in one place, and the blacks in the 
other.

* * * *



92
Q Were there any social activities sponsored by the 

union on a segregated basis?
[19] A Well, I can’t recall that. I don’t know.

Q At union meetings did blacks and whites sit to­
gether?

A No.
Q Where did the blacks sit?
A They sat on one side, and we had one side.

*  *  *  *

CROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. STELZENMULLER:) Mr. Thomas, 

the seating arrangement is the same as we have here 
today?

A Yeah.
*  *  *  *

CROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Mr. Thomas, the 

local union has not held any picnics since sometime dur­
ing the 1950’s, have they?

A Yeah, that is right.
* * * *

[20] THE COURT: Mr. Thomas, throughout the per­
iod that the picnics were held until sometime in the 
fifties, were they held as you have described, that is, one 
place for whites and one place for blacks?

A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Now insofar as the meetings are

concerned, you have said that for some period of time 
the meetings were segregated in that whites sat on one 
side of the union hall and blacks sat on another?

A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Has that continued to be the case

even at the present date?
A No. They sit like they want to now.
THE COURT: About how long has it been that you

have noticed that the whites would sit on both sides and 
blacks on both sides?



93

A Well, that has been since— I would say since we 
had that trial up here. I can’t recall the time. Back 
in ’74.

THE COURT: Now prior to ’74, back in the sixties,
was there any actual attempt made by blacks to sit on 
what had been the white side or did it just continue the 
way prior practice had [21] developed?

A Well, no, they couldn’t sit over there. They just 
didn’t go over there.

THE COURT: When you say they just couldn’t do
it, did anybody ever try it?

A Well, asked the president, and they would tell 
him three times seven is twenty-one, and they want to 
know what to do, and that is the only answer he would 
give.

THE COURT: Say that again.
A They would ask the president, and he would say 

three times seven is twenty-one, and they know what 
they want to do about it.

THE COURT: What did that mean?
A I don’t know. That is all he would tell us.
THE COURT: Three times seven is twenty-one?
A Yes. That means you’re grown, I guess.
THE COURT: It means what?
A You’re grown. You are a man. That is what I get 

out of it.
THE COURT: You understood him to say that 

people were grown men, and they would do what they 
want to do?
[22] A That is right.

THE COURT: Was this when some question came up
as to whether it was all right to sit on both sides of the 
aisle, or whatever it was?

A No, it wasn’t all right. We couldn’t do it— prob­
ably they would do something to us, I guess. They just 
say we couldn’t sit over there. So we just went and sat 
where we sat at.



94

THE COURT: How did it ever come up; was it in
some union meeting where somebody got up and said 
why are we sitting like this, why can’t we sit on the 
other side of the aisle? Was this what happened?

A Well, when we went to the union meetings, the 
president told us we couldn’t sit over there. Said there 
is a white side and a black side.

THE COURT: And who was the president at that
time?

A Paul Henn.
THE COURT: Was he white or black?
A White.
THE COURT: There have been periods of time, have

there not, that blacks have served as officers of the 
union?

A Well, the secretary and vice president [23] I be­
lieve sometimes in the sixties, I believe— in the fifties.

THE COURT: In the fifties there were blacks who
served as vice president and secretary?

A Yeah.
THE COURT: Well, actually even since the fifties,

have there not been blacks who served as officers as well 
as whites who served as officers?

A Yeah. Blacks have been serving.
THE COURT: Has this been pretty much contin­

uously since the 1950’s that there have been both blacks 
and whites served?

A Well, there have been about I would say about 
half.

THE COURT: About half the officers were white and
about half of the officers were black?

A Yeah.
THE COURT: Insofar as voting on any matters

and insofar as talking in the union meetings about mat­
ters of both whites and blacks, had the opportunity to 
speak and to vote?

A Yeah.



95
THE COURT: So far as you noticed, was there any

distinction made between the way a white could speak 
and vote and the way a black could speak [24] and 
vote?

A They all could speak and vote, yeah.
THE COURT: Now on the negotiating groups, when

there were the collective bargaining agreements came up, 
were there both whites and blacks on those negotiating 
groups or just whites or just blacks or what?

A That would be something in the contract, wouldn’t 
it? Negotiations would be like a contract, wouldn’t it?

THE COURT: Right.
A Well, blacks and whites would leave. They would 

go.
THE COURT: I believe that is all. I, of course, am

aware we have documentary evidence in terms of the— 
who the officers of the union and stewards have been, as 
well as their races over the years that was introduced in 
the last trial. And I have that available to me. But I 
wanted to inquire of this particular witness.

* * *

[25] RECROSS EXAMINATION
Q (BY MR. FALKENBERRY:) Mr. Thomas, I 

understood you to say you went to work at Pullman in 
January of 1946?

A That is right.
Q Did you know Mr. Perry Thompson at that time? 
A Yes, sir.
Q And Mr. Gus Dickerson?
A Yes.
Q Were they either officers or on the contract ne­

gotiating committee when you came to work at Pullman? 
A Yeah.
Q And they are both black men, aren’t they?
A Yes.
Q Did you know Mr. E. B. Jackson?
A Edward Jackson?



96
Q Right.
A Yes.
Q Was he a black man?

[26] A Yeah.
Q Was he also on the committee when you came to 

Pullman in ’46?
A Yeah. There were some in the union.

* * *- *
[26] THE COURT: Is it your recollection that gen­
erally when the union was discussing and considering 
contracts and changes in rules, that the whites [27] and 
blacks usually voted the same way or were there times 
when white union members would vote pretty much all 
one way and black union members would pretty much 
vote all another way?

A Well, I don’t know about that. All I know is they 
stand when they vote.

THE COURT: Do you ever recall any kind of issue
coming up during contract times or rules times where 
the blacks voted pretty much to a plan one way, and the 
whites voted pretty much to a plan the other way?

A I can’t recall that.
*  *  *  *

[27] WILLIE JAMES JOHNSON,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

* *- *
[30] Mr. Johnson, did you attend union meetings back 
in the fifties and sixties?

A Yes, I did. Beginning of ’66 up until now.
Q At that time was the seating segregated?
A Yes, they were.
Q Were there separate restroom facilities [31] for 

blacks and whites at the union hall?
A Yes, there were.
Q Likewise at the company was there segregated 

facilities?
A Right.



97

Q Drinking facilities?
A Drinking facilities, bathrooms, locker rooms, every­

thing was segregated.
Q How long did those segregated facilities at the 

company last?
A Until approximately June or July, 1967.
Q How long did the segregated facilities, that is, the 

restroom facilities at the local union last?
A Until about the same time.
Q Do you recall any discussions at a union meeting 

concerning a grievance of black workers?
A Grievance?
Q Yes.
A Yeah. We had an undiscriminatory contract had 

been negotiated in our basic contract.
Q When was this?
A In ’63. And we had questioned the president about 

segregated job assignments at the plant. And he would 
always tell us, well, we have got white [32] jobs be­
cause you’re going to stay on the black jobs, and the 
whites are going to maintain the white jobs. So about 
March of 1963, thirteen black employees were dropped, 
laid off, I mean, and thirteen junior whites remained in 
the plant. So we thirteen black employees filed a thir­
teen grievance saying the company was discriminating. 
And when we came to the union meeting that Tuesday 
night, the president, when he called the meeting to order, 
he had the thirteen grievances. And he held them up in 
his hand, and he said, I have thirteen grievances here, 
racial grievances that have been filed by thirteen black 
employees out in the plant against the company. And he 
criticized those thirteen black employees for filing such 
grievance. And I want the rank and file to tell me 
whether or not to tear these grievances up or process 
them. Well, one white man got up and made a motion 
that he tear them up. But we had the majority that 
night of blacks, and we voted it down, and made a mo­



98

tion to process the grievances. And we did win the vote. 
But the president did not process the grievances. And 
later we went to the National Labor Relations Board 
and filed discrimination charges there. At that same 
night the secretary was Gus Dickerson.
[33] Q Was Gus Dickerson a black man?

A Yes, he was a black man. But he got up and told 
us he was not going to process a racial grievance. It 
wasn’t time for it, and he wasn’t going to do it.

Q In your occupation as a member of the union dur­
ing the fifties and early sixties, Mr. Johnson, did the 
black union officials press racial grievances or complaints 
of racial grievances at this time?

A No. They would always say there wasn’t time for 
it.

Q The president of the union is now a black man, is 
he not?

A Yes, he is.
Q When did the union elect its first black president?
A In 1970,1 think it was.
Q Who was that?
A Perry L. Thompson.
Q At that time had anybody ever run for president 

and lost?
A Yes. Perry had ran a number of times before.
Q I take it blacks had served as president— I’m sorry, 

as secretary, financial secretary and [34] vice president 
of the local?

A Yes, they have.
* * * *

[52] MR. STELZENMULLER: This chart contains
certain other information. I would like to explain it, 
because I think it would be helpful to follow through 
that mass of documents.

As shown on the chart, the sources are given for the 
information contained in 1941 voting lists which is in 
evidence. The annual overtime bonus summaries for the



99

years ’41 through ’46, those are in evidence. The United 
Steelworkers checkoff list for 1946 which is in evidence. 
The seniority lists for 1947 to date, and the union con­
tracts themselves. I think all we may have missed— did 
we miss any, Frank, or getting all— do we have an un­
broken series of all the contracts—wTe have pretty close 
to it anyway.

The chart shows several things. It shows depart­
ments and changes in the name or changes in the iden­
tity of them from the period of 1941 up to now.

It shows the different bargaining units, because there 
have been several changes in there that we think are 
material as showing how certain [53] groups got broken 
out of other groups. Sometimes it was by reason of the 
NLRB’s certifying in certain ways. It also shows changes 
in the seniority system at the Bessemer plant over that 
period, as shown by the key, the little gold dots, a couple 
of them on there indicate the IBEW bargaining unit. 
The columns are different points of time where a change 
took place. Not every year is indicated, because not every 
year was any change. The two gold dots up here signify 
the electrical, and had in there the NLRB’s certification 
and were covered in their first union contract. As shown 
by the chart, the IBEW was decertified in 1946, where­
upon the electricians went back into the maintenance 
department of United Steelworkers where they had been 
broken out. They became represented by the United 
Steelworkers and the power house which was that group 
of people also that went back into the steelworkers unit. 
But that didn’t occur until June 1, ’47.

Inasmuch as, and I will explain what the row of black 
dots mean. The significant thing occurred then.

The silver dots are the International Association of 
Machinists which are shown on the chart, [54] originally 
had five groups of people in the unit, that which is now 
called maintenance IAM, die and tool, wheel and axel, 
and the air brake pipe shop.



100

In 1944 this column shows when the IBE— the IAM 
certification was changed. There is testimony, I think, 
in Mr. Herring’s deposition, of how that came about. 
At that time the machinists also— the NLRB changed 
these three groups out of the IAM and in to the United 
Steelworkers bargaining unit. For that reason they are 
shown with red dots. The red dots signifying, accord­
ing to the key, United Steelworkers while departmental 
seniority prevailed, which it did at that time.

Finally the black dots refer to United Steelworkers 
departments or groups where occupational seniority pre­
vails. Because for a period of time from June 1, 1947, to 
September 1, 1954, there was no departmental seniority 
system of the type that exists now, but seniority was 
applied by occupations which actually amount to clas­
sification within departments as shown on the charts. 
The International Association of Machinists which still 
represents unbrokenly represented certain maintenance 
employees and certain die and tool employees. They have 
always had a classification seniority system where [55] 
insofar as layoffs, recalls and the like are concerned, 
people are in competition only with members in their 
own classification. So there has been no change in IAM. 
There was a change in the United Steelworkers and a 
change back in 1954 to the departmental system.

Next to the last column is September 1, 1954. The 
last column says to present. There have been no changes 
at all in this system since that time with one exception, 
that this boiler house department, a new department 
created September 1, ’54, became vacant. That is as 
shown on the 1964 senority list. There have been no 
hourly employees in that department since March 2, 
1965.

We submit that the chart not only helps you follow 
through the different changes, and where different people 
came from, but also it will be significant to you in that 
it shows whereas there were a number of changes around



101

during the period when the occupational seniority pre­
vailed, they didn’t really have anything to do with 
seniority.

THE COURT: Let me just interrupt you at this
point on a question I need now is whether or not there 
is objection to Exhibit 27. And I would take it that it 
would not be objected to. The [56] plaintiff may have a 
desire to, in some way, contradict something that is 
shown there by virtue of reference to other evidence, 
and may not agree with the methodology used. But I 
take it it should be received in the same way that Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit 110 was received.

MR. CLEMON: Well, Your Honor, we would object
to the portrayal of the truck department as being a CIO 
department in 1942. Actually the truck department was 
certified as IAM was the truck department, was black 
by a letter gave to the CIO department, by the letter 
of December 19 ,1 think it was, 1941.

Likewise, we object to the use of overtime bonus 
summaries as a basis for determining the departments 
that existed under the contracts. Those overtime bonus 
summaries, some of them are in evidence elsewhere in 
this case in the earlier hearing, and some of those would 
show that there is a department known as press, punch 
and shear, but in point of fact, we know them to be two 
departments. We say that the use of those overtime 
bonus summaries, while they might show what—how 
the company treated certain units, they don’t show what 
the union agreed to and what was provided for in the 
contract. That [57] that would be shown by the sen­
iority lists which are required to be kept by the contract.

THE COURT: Let me interrupt you just a minute,
Mr. demon.

As I understand it, your Exhibit 110 is based upon 
the original voting list and upon the seniority lists that 
are 1947 and subsequent.

MR. CLEMON: Yes, sir.



102

THE COURT: And while there may be some dif­
ferences between your compilation and this defendant’s 
Exhibit 27, with respect to those years, it seems to me 
that is just a contradiction of evidence.

MR. CLEMON: That is correct.
THE COURT: The real question becomes the period

of time between 1941 and 1947, and perhaps the sig­
nificance of those changes. I really wonder if this is 
not an item where the matter should be allowed into 
evidence, but you’re perfectly free to contradict or dis­
agree with either the methodology or the conclusions to 
be drawn therefrom.

MR. CLEMON: Yes, sir. We will withdraw our ob­
jection.

THE COURT: Let’s receive Exhibit 27, and it’s not
to be shown as any way binding on the plaintiff.

* * * *



103

EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT 1978 TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 1—FIRST DOCUMENT
[NLRB Voting List— 1941]

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 
BESSEMER PLANT

EMPLOYEES ON PAYROLL—AUGUST 9th, 1941.

DEPARTMENT WHITE COLORED TOTAL

PLANT PROTECTION 12 — 12
SUPERINTENDENCE 9 4 13
WOOD MILL 16 1 17
LUMBER YARD 29 — 29
WOOD ERECTION 60 26 86
PAINT 29 35 64
SHIPPING TRACK 7 5 12
SAND BLAST — • — —
PUNCH & SHEAR 33 65 98
PRESS 11 33 44
STEEL CONSTRUCTION 39 86 125
STEEL ERECTION 90 255 345
WELDING 50 — 50
WHEEL & AXLE 19 11 30
TRUCK _ 14 14
FORGE 32 26 58
DIE & TOOL 55 2 57
MAINTENANCE 57 13 70
TEMPLATE 3 — 3
STORES 6 1 7
STEEL MISCELLANEOUS 6 73 79

TOTAL HOURLY 
EMPLOYEES 563 650 1213

TOTAL SALARIED 
EMPLOYEES 55 — 55

TOTAL EMPLOYEES 
ON ROLL 618 650 1268



104

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 1—SECOND DOCUMENT
PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

BESSEMER PLANT

SUPERINTENDENCE DEPARTMENT
COLORED

BADGE
OR

WHITE NAME
RE­

OCCUPATION MARKS

171 Col. Herman Hayes Janitor
172 Col. Edgar Sanders Dispensary Aid
173 Col. Letcher Pickens Laborer
175 Col. Albert G. Wynn Janitor
201 White Oscar Morris Bryan Blue Print Operator 

Tracer
202 White James C. Sutherland Jr. Clerk
203 White James W. Bonham Blue Print Operator
204 White Rose Lee Jacobs P.B.X. Operator & 

Stenographer
205 White John E. Loveless, Jr. Blue Print Boy
206 White Dorothy B. Windsor Stenographer
207 White John F. Suttle Co-op Student
209 White Newman Rex Huey Inspector
210 White Harold W. Falter Sample Car Man



105

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 13

[1] BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

TENTH REGION

X-R-468

In the Matter of : 
Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co. 

and
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, (CIO).

Court Room, Federal Building, 
Birmingham, Alabama, 
Thursday, August 28, 1941.

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pur­
suant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m.

BEFORE:
JOHN C. McREE, Trial Examiner.

APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM E. MITCH, Jr., 920 Massey Building, 

appearing for Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 
Local No. 1466, Birmingham, Ala.

NOEL R. BEDDOW, Steiner Building, appearing for 
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local 1466, 
Birmingham, Ala.

JELKS H. CABANISS, First National Bank Building, 
Birmingham, Alabama, appearing for Pullman 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company.

J. R. MAY, 1008 Carter Hill Road, Montgomery, Ala­
bama, appearing for International Brotherhood of



106

Electrical Workers, Local Union #B-287, P.O. Box 
2377, Birmingham, Alabama.

J. H. HOWARD, Machinists’ Building, Washington,
D.C., appearing for International Association of 
Machinists.

[2] J. D. BAUMGARDNER, 209 Clark Building, Bir­
mingham, Alabama, appearing for International As­
sociation of Machinists.

J. L. GIGLIO, 500 Lyric Building, Birmingham, Ala­
bama, appearing for Federal Labor Union, affiliated 
with the American Federation of Labor, 500 Lyric 
Building, Birmingham, Alabama.

[3] PROCEEDINGS

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: The hearing will
come to order.

This is a formal hearing in the matter of Pullman- 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company and Steel Work­
ers Organizing Committee, Case No. X-R-468, before the 
National Labor Relations Board.

•Sf *  *  *

[4] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Both you and
Mr. Baumgardner are appearing for the International 
Association of Machinists?

MR. HOWARD: That is correct.

[12] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: It is stipulated
and agreed by and between the Pullman-Standard Car 
Manufacturing Company and the Trial Examiner for 
the purpose of this hearing only, that the Pullman- 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company operates a plant 
at Bessemer, in Jefferson County, Alabama; that the



107

said company is a corporation under the laws of the 
State of Delaware, qualified to do business as a foreign 
corporation in the state of Alabama.

The said company, during the week ended August 9, 
1941, had on its payrolls, in connection with its operations 
at said plant, a total of 1268 employes.

The company is engaged in the manufacture of rail­
road cars. Its current production is at the rate of about 
27 box cars made of wood and steel, and 20 all-steel or 
hopper cars per work day. All cars, after manufacture 
is completed, are delivered f.o.b. Bessemer to Class I 
railroads engaged in interstate commerce.

* * * *
[27] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I think it is
advisable at the outset of the hearing, so we can possibly 
save some time, for the intervening unions to make a 
statement, if they are in position to do so at this time, 
as to what their contention is as to the appropriate 
bargaining unit or units.

Of course, we have the petitioning union outlining its 
position in its petition, that is, that the unit should 
consist of an industrial unit in which all production and 
maintenance employes are eligible, exclusive of foremen, 
superintendents and clerical forces.

Now, that is the contention of the petitioning union, 
is it not?

MR. BEDDOW: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, I want a state­

ment from the intervening unions as to their contentions 
as to the appropriate unit, so as to save us some time in 
our proof.

MR. M AY: Mr. Examiner, the International Brother­
hood [28] of Electrical Workers contends that the ap­
propriate unit for its organization includes all electrical 
workers employed in the maintenance department, power 
and sub-station operators, exclusive of supervisory and 
clerical forces.



108

[29] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: It is your con­
tention, then, if I understand you, Mr. May, that there 
should be a separate unit which should include all your 
electrical workers in the company who are working in 
the maintenance department, the powerhouse or sub­
station.

MR. M AY: In the powerhouse and sub-station as
powerhouse or sub-station operators.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: As operators in those 
places, exclusive of any supervisory employees.

MR. MAY: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Do you know how

many employees are in that unit?
MR. M AY: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Ex­

aminer— I have not checked the payroll,—but, to the 
best of my knowledge, approximately 20 men are em­
ployed, more or less, approximately 20 men, I don’t know 
just how many. I am of the opinion that it is less than 
that.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: About 20?
MR. MAY: Yes, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : What is the conten­

tion of the Machinists?
MR. HOWARD: The International Association of

Machinists contends to have a bargaining unit covering 
the machinists, apprentices and helpers coming under the 
wheel and axle shop, that is, exclusive of the clerical and 
supervisory [30] forces.

Our contention is for the bargaining unit to cover all 
machinists, apprentices and helpers in the maintenance 
and the other departments where they work, namely, the 
wheel and axle shop, the machine shop, the tool and die 
shop, and the welders, and the airbrake department.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You want all ma­
chinists, all machinist apprentices and helpers in the 
wheel and axle department, the die and tool department,



109

the machine shop, the airbrake department, and all weld­
ers in all of the departments?

MR. HOWARD: That is right.
#  -X- -X*

MR. HOWARD: That is right. Mr. Examiner, later
on, we would like to define what we contend is machin­
ists. In other words, a classification of the work in the 
department.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You will, of course,
have an opportunity to put on your proof to support your 
contention. What I am trying to get now is just a pre­
liminary statement.

How about the Federal Labor Union?
MR. GIGLIO: Mr. Examiner, the Federal Labor

Union, the [31] affiliated union of the American Federa­
tion of Labor, is covering all workers with the exception 
of electricians, the crafts that the Machinists claim, leav­
ing out foremen, whose authority is to hire and fire. We 
will take the rest.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: How about clerical
employees?

MR. GIGLIO: We take them, too.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: If I understand you,

then, you are asking for a unit to consist of all employees 
other than those that the electricians claim in their unit, 
and those that the Machinists claim in their unit, and 
the supervisory employees.

MR. GIGLIO: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And the unit is to

include the clerical forces.
MR. GIGLIO : That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Well, now, in look­

ing over this payroll, I have seen references to watch­
men and plant protection employees.

MR. GIGLIO: We take those.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You take those in?
MR. GIGLIO: Yes, sir.



110

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Does the company
have any position to take on the appropriate bargaining 
unit?

MR. CABANISS: It does not, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Mr. Beddow, are you

ready to [32] put on your proof?
MR. BEDDOW: Yes, sir, we are ready.
MR. MITCH: Off the record, Mr. Examiner.

(Discussion off the record.)
MR. BEDDOW: Mr. Sleeman, will you take the stand,

please?
W. C. SLEEMAN

called as a witness by and on behalf of the Petitioner, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Give your full name
and address to the reporter.

THE WITNESS: W. C. Sleeman; The Pullman
plant.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. Beddow) What is your position, Mr. 

Sleeman?
A Plant manager.

* * * *
[34] Q Now, in this business, about how many men 
do you have employed there at this time in the plant at 
Bessemer?
[35] A My last recollection of the payroll I looked 
over is, we had approximately 1268 on the rolls.

*  *  *  #

Q Now, what are the duties of [the] electricians? 
A An electrician in our plant is hired for the pur­

pose of maintenance work. We have them working 
throughout the plant in the different departments. As a



I l l

rule, when we are operating to full capacity, we find 
that it is economical to have an electrician in each depart­
ment. For instance, on the track, we have so many 
hoists that we find that where they are continually being 
misused, or something is the matter with them, why, the 
man is on the job to immediately repair them, so as not 
to hold up production.

Q Do they maintain your electrical equipment, such 
as winding armatures, and such as that?

A We, as a rule, wind our armatures. However, we 
very frequently, in case of necessity, and sometimes it is 
to our advantage, to have them wound on the outside. 
We have a combination man who is the armature winder.

Q But these men are all over your plant keeping up 
this [36] equipment, is that true?

A No, not all of the electricians. We have some that 
work in the electrical shop, that do repair work in the 
shop, where it cannot be done on the job.

Q What kind of repair work?
A Repairing reamers. We have, probably, three or 

four hundred electrical reamers, and when they get out 
of commission on the track, they are carried back to the 
electrical shop, where that reamer is repaired for the 
track’s use.

Q They also repair various equipment there, such 
as your cranes and motors?

A Cranes cannot be repaired in the electrical shop. 
Sometimes, motors are taken there, but, as a rule, the 
crane work is done right on the job.

Q Now, how many cranes do you have on the job, 
Mr. Sleeman?

A We have six in the main bay; we have three, we 
just added another one, which makes four, in the second 
bay, and one in the wood mill, and one in the wood erec­
tion, and we just added another one in a new crane 
runway.



112

Q And are they stationary or bridge cranes, or what 
is their description?

A They are all bridge cranes.
Q Extending the width of your building?
A Yes.

[37] Q Now, let us go back to that little repair shop. 
A Yes, sir.
Q How many men are employed in that little repair 

shop you say you have?
A They vary from three or four.

*  4C- *

[38] Q Let us go back for one minute to the elec­
tricians there. There was one question called to my 
attention. Do you have a powerhouse out there?

A We have a sub-station. I would not class it as a 
powerhouse. A powerhouse is a place where they usually 
make power. However, we do have one small turbine, 
which was recently put in, as stand-by, the stand-by 
turbine to cut down demands. Outside of that, there is 
just a sub-station.

Q Now, who do you work in this sub-station? Is it an 
electrician, a mechanic, or how do you classify him?

A We classify him as the powerhouse operator.
[39] Q He is not classified as an electrician?

A No, sir, he is a powerhouse operator.
Q To your knowledge, is he an electrician?
A To my knowledge, I would class him as an elec­

trical man, that is, a man who is capable of taking care 
of electrical appurtenances, which he must do in that 
powerhouse.

* * * *
Q Now, just what do you class as machinists, Mr. 

Sleeman?
[40] A In our shop, we class machinists as men who, 
that is, general, all-around machinists, mostly who do 
maintenance work. We have an awful lot of die work



118

on which we use machinists, when they are not working 
on this maintenance work.

Q Do you employ in this machinist’s work very many 
apprentices?

A We have some few apprentices. They are young 
fellows who are coming along that we are trying to make 
machinists out of.

Q Now, as to helpers, do you have very many helpers? 
A We do not have so very many helpers. Usually the 

apprentices are, we call them handymen, they act as 
helpers. They are the fellows that fit up the dies.

Q Now, are those helpers or apprentices all white, or 
partially white and partially negroes?

A I presume you are talking about the machine shop
now?

Q That is right, we are still on the machine shop. ^
A The best I recollect, we have one colored man in 

the machine shop, and that is the fellowT for sweeping 
out, I don’t know now whether that man is there or not. 

Q You don’t know how many apprentices or helpers
you have?

A No, sir.
Q And you couldn’t tell whether they are white or 

negro helpers?
[41] A I don’t know. I know we do not have any 
negro helpers. We never had. We had one clean-up man 
who was a negro.

Q That is in the shop?
A That is in the machine shop.

* * * *
[43] Q (By Mr. Beddow) Now, [concerning welders] 
duties about the plant, are they all over the entire plant
where there is welding going on?

A The electrical welders in the maintenance depart­
ment, yes. Their duty is to be all over the plant and in 
the machine shop. The electrical welders on the produc­



114

tion part of the work are confined, more or less to a 
specific location.

* * * *
[44] Q (By Mr. Beddow) we were attempting to 
negotiate a contract with you from June until September?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, at that time, was there any question, or did 
the electricians or machinists, or any labor organization, 
or [45] Federal Labor Union, approach you for a con­
tract?

A Not as I remember.
* * * *

Q Do you remember the kind of contract we pre­
sented to you at that time?

MR. CABANISS: You mean, as to the bargaining
unit?

MR. BEDDOW: As to the bargaining unit.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t remember the entirety

of it. I read it over once, and when I received a letter 
from the National Labor Relations Board, I didn’t go into 
it any further; I didn’t go any further into it, or do 
anything further about it.

MR. CABANISS: Mr. Sleeman, I don’t believe you
understood his question. His question was, did the con­
tract that he presented to you purport to refer to the 
SWOC as the bargaining agency for all of your em­
ployees.
[46] THE WITNESS: I will say it did, as far as I
remember.

* *- * *
[47] Q (By Mr. Beddow) And you have been operat­
ing as a single group, is that right, similar to the group 
that we are asking you to sign with us in our contract?

A Well, we operate by departments. We have the 
steel erection department, who place the cars, the con-



115

struetion department, and the wood mills. They are all 
different.

Q But they operate as a whole?
A Each one of them operates, the wood mill operates 

as the wood mill, the wood erection as the wood erection. 
They have nothing to do with the machine shop.

The powerhouse operates as the powerhouse. The 
machine shop operates as the machine shop, but the 
maintenance men are all over the plant, they do not 
engage in production; you see, they differentiate there. 
The production and maintenance are different.

* * * *
[48] Q (By Mr. Mitch) Mr. Sleeman, I didn’t get 
this exactly straight. Mr. Beddow was asking you about 
a break-down of the people that work in the plant, you 
stated there were men that were designated as machin­
ists, and I believe you stated that of that class you 
classified the people working in the die casting shop as 
machinists, is that correct?

A Not altogether. I did make this statement: I
classed the machinist as a man who is capable of doing 
machine shop work; that is, any kind of machine shop 
work. Very often the breakdowns are not such as to 
keep that class of man busy, and we frequently use them 
on die work, complicated die work. The men that work 
on these dies are handymen and apprentices.

Q In other words, you have people working in the die 
shop that you classify as machinists?

A That is right.
[49] Q And that number, you stated, were not kept 
busy all the time on one task. That is, they varied their 
work?

A That is in the maintenance end.



116

Q When you have a man classified as a machinist, 
what does he do, when he is off as a machinist, and is 
placed in the die casting shop. Now, when there is no 
work available for him, what does he do?

A You mean, when there is no work available in the 
dies?

Q Yes.
A We get rid of him.
Q I understood you to say he is moved from one part 

of the machine shop into the die shop.
A No, the men move around the shop, but in the die 

shop the men who are high class machinists are kept 
at machining. They keep up the machining work for 
the maintenance end. Now, when that fellow has no 
work there, he is put on the complicated die work.

Q I believe you also stated that was true of the 
machinists who work in the repair shop?

A That is right.
Q Sometimes they work, when that work does not 

keep him busy, he is moved and employed in other parts 
of the plant?

A Yes, sir, that is right.
Q You stated, however, on the welders you had, when 

work is not available for a man who is hired as a welder, 
he is [50] occupied otherwise in the plant, is that true?

A That is true. We have additional work in sight 
where we may put these welders on. Right now we are 
going through an expansion, and rather than to leave the 
welders go, we will put them on doing other welding, 
structural work, while we are building little structures, 
building.

*  *  *  *



117

CROSS EXAMINATION

* * * *
[By Mr. May] Now, who is the head of this electrical 

shop, who is the foreman or the leader, or just what 
classification do you put on that man?

We have a foreman over the maintenance department 
who is in charge of the millwrights and the electricians. 

* * * #
[62] Q Now, you testified about two classifications of 
welders, one production welders and the other mainte­
nance welders?

A Yes.
Q Now, does that foreman have charge of all of the 

welders?
A That foreman, as a rule, is the production man. 

However, in the case of the machine shop it has only 
been in recent years that the company welded cars, and 
prior to that we always had a welder in the machine 
shop doing both acetylene and electric welding, but since 
then we, more or less, have this one welder looking after, 
generally, with the other welders—by that I mean we 
have these maintenance welders and if we have trouble 
in another place to get welders, we might pull that man 
down to assist them.

*  *  *  *

[63] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Come to order,
please.

Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Before you go into 
those lists, Mr. Sleeman, there is one question I would 
like to clear up in the record. I would like for you to 
explain, briefly, what your operations are, that is, start­
ing with your first manufacturing process and taking it 
on through to the finished product. Of course, I don’t 
want you to go into minute detail, but briefly tell us 
what manufacturing steps you have in these various 
departments.



118

A All right, sir. We make two types of cars, all- 
steel cars and composite cars. The composite cars are 
steel cars with wood lining and wood floors. Both the 
all-steel cars and the composite cars are run through the 
steel shop in practically the same manner, that is, by tak­
ing, first, the steel and fabricating it.

Q First, let me ask you, now, of course, you do not 
roll any steel yourself?

A We do not roll any steel. We do not make any 
castings. [64] We do, however, make drop forgings.

Q You buy your steel and buy your castings, then?
A All of our steel and all of our castings are bought ; 

and, we do not have any lumber. We buy the lumber.
Q Now, briefly, just go ahead and tell us what these 

processes are?
A The steel is fabricated, as well as the castings we 

buy are fabricated in the so-called big shop by punching 
holes and pressing them into various shapes. They go 
from that location, the fabricated parts, down to the 
construction department where they go through a series 
of sub-assembly work. The parts are riveted together, or 
welded into some component parts. From there they are 
taken down into the steel erection shop, and at the steel 
erection shop, at one side of the building, we have a 
welding department where these pre-fabricated parts are 
welded into sub-assembly parts, the same as the construc­
tion department has riveted parts. These are then moved 
down to the steel erection shop and the car is started 
in the first position. Different parts are put on it, and 
then, as it progresses down the steel erection track, these 
different pre-fabricated parts and pre-assembled parts 
are applied to the car.

Q Will you go into that in a little more detail? Let 
me go into a little more detail with you. Do you make 
the wheels in this plant?
[65] A The wheels are not made there. That is a 
casting, as a rule.



119

Q Well, now, do you buy finished castings, that is, a 
casting that has already been machined, that is a wheel, 
or do you buy the rough casting which has to be ma­
chined in this plant to make the wheels?

A The wheels are bought ready for use with the ex­
ception of the final boring of the wheel to fit the axles. 
The axles are also bought outside. We do not make 
those, but, we finish the axles. They are furnished to us 
rough turned and we finish them and mount the wheels 
on the axle, and then the trucks are built and put on the 
axles and the wheels, and it is moved over, and then, 
this car is set on the axles and the wheels and the trucks 
and the cars run down the steel erection track, and when 
it comes out of the steel shop it is a complete car with 
the exception of the wood, and when the car is an all- 
steel car it is then painted as soon as it comes out of the 
steel shop. Then, it is moved over the paint shop, that is, 
the all-steel car. It is moved over to the paint shop where 
it is given another coat of paint and stenciled and then 
it is taken down and weighed and shipped.

Now, on the composite cars, where they have wood on 
them, after the car comes out of the steel shop it is given 
its first coat of paint, and then it is transferred over to 
the wood erection shop. Now, the wood erection shop, 
certainly, has [66] to be furnished material, so we have 
what we call a wood mill. In this wood mill lumber is 
fabricated similar to what we do in the steel shop.

Q What do you buy, rough lumber, undressed lum­
ber, or do you buy dressed lumber?

A That all depends on the grade. Sometimes we buy 
finished lumber.

Q Do you have a planer?
A Oh, yes, we have planers, grainers, borers and the 

usual machinery that is used in a freight car plant for 
wood fabricating. After this wood is fabricated, it is 
transferred down to the wood erection department where 
it is applied to the steel cars in a progressive manner,



120

the same as the steel cars are built. That is, in the first 
position, they put on the floors and—

Q Sort of assembly line operation?
A That is right. They have probably, I think, twelve 

positions over there, and the first erection is to put in 
the floor boards, and the car moves down and then they 
buck the floors down, and they then bore the holes, and 
then the next movement is where they nut the bolts up, 
and then they put the lining on, and then the next 
movement is the nails, after they put the lining board on. 
It is a progressive system of work, and after it is out of 
the wood shop it is moved to the paint shop and given 
another coat, stenciled, weighed and shipped.

*  *  *  *

[68] Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Will you refer 
to those lists, Mr. Sleeman, and tell us the number of 
electricians that you have working in the plant, that 
you have classified on your payroll as electricians?

A Seventeen in the maintenance department.
Q And do you also have, or, can you tell us the 

number of [69] employees you have in the powerhouse?
A Four.
Q Are those all operators that you have already de­

scribed their duties, I think, when Mr. Beddow was ques­
tioning you?

A No, there are two operators and two helpers.
*  *  *  *

Q Now, can you tell us the number of people you 
have classified as machinists?

A We have nineteen as machinists.
Q Now, what department are they carried in on the 

payroll?
[70] A They are carried in the die and tool depart­
ment.

Q Do you have a department listed on your payroll 
as “ Machine Shop” ?



121

A No sir, the only department is the die and tool 
department.

Q And you have nineteen listed in the die and tool 
department classified as machinists?

A Yes.
Q Can you tell us, briefly, what the duties of those 

particular men are?
A Those men are the men who we classify as men 

capable of doing general machine shop work, like main­
tenance, and they can do repair work and are capable 
on machines—

Q Are those men who are classified as machinists, do 
they devote all of their time to maintenance work, that 
is, repairs, and the making of repair parts around the 
plant?

A As a rule, yes, that is what they are hired for, but, 
there are some times when we find that there is not 
enough maintenance work and they may be put on help­
ing on dies and machining dies and stuff like that.

Q Will you explain briefly for the record what the 
dies are and how they are used in your manufacturing 
process?

A It is a very important part of car manufacture, 
because the dies are made of castings that are machined 
on the backs so that they will fit together and press 
various different [71] parts that go to make up a car.

Q These are dies that go in presses, is that correct?
A They are used on presses.
Q They are used on presses and you place sheet steel 

in there to form the various parts?
A That is right.
Q And are those dies manufactured or made in your 

plant?
A The castings are bought.
Q Are the castings bought in the rough?
A In the rough. However, in many cases we like to 

buy castings which we can use the rough surface on to



122
press on, because it lasts longer and it has got a hardened 
side to it and presses more material. However, the 
castings are bought in the rough and machined in our 
die and tool department.

Q Now, what work do these machinists, in particular, 
do with these dies you are talking about when you do 
not have enough maintenance work?

A Well, they machine them so they will fit together.
Q In other words, they are repairing or working on 

the dies proper?
A That is right.
Q In other words, they do not operate the presses?
A No, the press is in the production department.

*  *  *  «■

[72] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I am trying to
get it clear in the record.

* * *
Q What I am trying to get at is, do they spend most 

of their time on maintenance work or on the die work?
A I will say yes, they do.

* * * *
[74] Q Can you tell us how many apprentice machin­
ists you have?

A Well, in that department we have twelve die men 
and we have three apprentices.

Q Now, twelve die men. Let us leave the die men for 
the time being and go to the apprentices and helpers first.

A We have three apprentices and one co-op student.
Q Now, these apprentices, are they learning the ma­

chinist’s trade?
A They are learning the machinist’s trade.
Q How do you handle the apprentice system in your 

plant? Does the man go to work as an apprentice or 
does he go to work as a helper?

A Well, we usually classify him as an apprentice. 
We haven’t any helpers down in our department. They 
go in as apprentices.



12B

Q And you say you have three and a co-op student?
A Yes.
Q This co-op student is a student who works part 

of the time and then goes to school part of the time?
A Three months work and three months in school.
Q And does this same student come back and work 

in your plant each three months?
A He is the same student.
Q You do not change students?

[75] A No.
Q How are the apprentices paid?
A Well, I don’t remember their rates. The best I 

recollect, they are on 48y2 cents now.
Q They are also paid by the hour?
A Yes.
Q How long does an apprentice have to work as an 

apprentice before he is rated as a machinist? Do you 
have a set period?

A We do not have any set period, it just depends on 
how fast he is and capable of accepting the work.

Q Are there any intermediate steps this apprentice 
has to go through before he is classified as a machinist?

A No, they usually say he has got to work about 
four years. In fact, we have had a couple of machinists 
there that have gone through all of the steps. They put 
them at each machine we have and try to give him a 
varied experience, that is the apprentice.

Q You say you do not have any helpers in that 
department?

A No.
Q What are the other classifications?
A Well, we have what we call machine operators on 

these castings we talked about that are machined, but 
that is purely and simply a production job. They are 
lifted up there, probably eight or ten castings on the 
bed of the planer, and they just hog the metal off to a 
certain dimension, or approximate [76] dimension. There



124

is no fine, skilled machining. It is a very rough cut. 
Then, they are taken from there and taken over and 
drilled on an automatic jig where we have, probably, 
eight or ten drills that come down and drill the castings 
at one lick. Those are machine operators. We have five 
of those.

Q Do they have a different rate of pay from your 
apprentice machinists?

A Oh, yes, they are production men. They are given 
so much a hundred. It is piece work for them.

Q Piece work for them, but that work is done in 
your machine shop?

A Yes.
Q And these same machines they work on, are those 

same machines also used by the machinists for other types 
of work?

A Very frequently we have a machine that has cast­
ings on which are of such size that we often run across 
dies where we have to pull that work off and put the 
other dies on there on account of the size of the ma­
chines, and in that case, why, of course, the machinist 
does the work.

Q But the machinist works on an hourly rate?
A Oh, yes.
Q How many of these machine operators do you have?
A Five.
Q Now, are they listed on your payroll as machine 

operators, or do you call them machinists?
[77] A We call those planer operators and drill press 
operators. That is what they are on the payroll as.

Q They are either operating the drill press or operat­
ing a planer?

A That is right.
Q Now, do you have any other employees in that 

department?
A No, that is all.



125

Q To refresh your recollection, don’t you have two 
crane men?

A No, they come under the crane men. I said that 
was all there is. The tool room men in this department, 
in the machine shop—

Q You mean in the tool and die department?
A Yes.
Q What are their jobs?
A They have charge of the tool rooms dispensing tools 

for the machine shop and some of the tools for the other 
departments. However, we have other tool rooms through­
out the shop. That is not the main tool room.

Q How many of those men do you have?
A We have two tool room men and two helpers.
Q Do they do anything other than just keep up with 

the tools and give them out?
A Oh, yes, they do little jobs like grinding tools.
Q Sharpening tools?

[78] A Sharpening tools and stuff like that.
Q They are not tool makers?
A Oh, no, the tool makers are in the forge depart­

ment.
Q How are those men paid?
A These men?
Q Yes.
A By the hour.
Q Do you have anybody else in that department?
A No sir, not in the tool room, not in that particular 

department.
Q I am talking about the tool and die department?
A We have some helpers, and these helpers are called 

handymen. We approximately have, maybe, four or five 
of those. They vary on the different payrolls. It just 
depends on the kind of work, and we have a hooker.

Q What is a hooker?
A A hooker is a fellow that hooks for the craneman.



126

Q Do you have craneman working in that depart­
ment?

A Yes sir, we have one craneman in that department.
Q You have to have an operator on each shift, then, 

on that crane?
A Yes.
Q Are they carried on the tool and die department?
A Yes, they are covered in the tool and die depart­

ment. They are called the crane operators who are car­
ried in a [79] separate department.

Q They just work in this one department?
A Yes sir.
Q They do not work on the crane in other depart­

ments?
A No, those are white men.

* * * *
[82] Q Now, then, those welders, I believe you already 
testified, are paid on a piece rate basis?

A Yes sir.
Q And they work under a welding foreman?
A Yes sir, they work under a welding foreman.
Q And you have how many maintenance welders?
A We have what we call repair welders.
Q Are those the men you referred to here as the 

maintenance welders?
A Yes, sir, three men.
Q They are the most skilled?
A Yes.
Q Where do they work, where is their usual place 

for working?
A Well, we usually have one in the tool and die de­

partment, but at the particular time there is two in the 
tool and die department and there is one in the mainte­
nance department.

Q What other maintenance department do you have 
other than the tool and die?



127

[83] A I didn’t get that. There are two welders, re­
pair welders, that are now working in the tool and die 
department.

Q Where is the third one?
A The third one works with the maintenance depart­

ment. By that I mean a man who goes all over the shop.
Q In other words, you do not have him in any par­

ticular room?
A That is right. For instance, we might have some 

breakdown, maybe a frame or a casting would break 
down on the track, and we would send that man down 
there to do that.

Q Do those three welders work under the same welder 
foreman as the production welders?

A We have had them in different conditions. Some­
times they work under the die and tool and sometimes 
under the welding. We try to keep our welders, all our 
welders, under one man.

Q Now, at the present time, those two in the tool and 
die department, do they work under the welding fore­
man?

A We have a die and tool man and I think they are 
generally under the die and tool man and the head 
welder, and the maintenance welder is under the main­
tenance man and the head welder. In other words, the 
die and tool man has charge of the men, but the welding 
man has charge of the welding, because the welding 
supervisor must see that all of the welding comes up to 
specifications, so that is why we have to have, more or 
less, a joint combination or control of that plant.

*  *  *  *

[84] Q Now, can you tell us briefly about the airbrake 
department.

*  *  *  *

THE WITNESS: I can tell you, generally, about the
pipe men.



128

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Is that what you 
call the airbrake department, the pipe men?

THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) How are they listed 

on the payroll?
A They are listed on our payroll as production men. 

Their work is entirely different than the maintenance 
pipe men.

Q Is it their job to install the airbrakes on the cars?
A The airbrakes and the pipes, the fabricated pipes, 

whereas the maintenance men fabricate their pipe in an 
entirely different [85] place and their work is different.

Q Can you take this payroll and tell us the approxi­
mate number of men in the airbrake department?

A I probably could get it out of my head quicker than 
I could on that.

Q All right, sir, give us the approximate number?
A Let’s see. We probably have fifteen men in that 

department, that is as of that date.
Q That is as of August 9th?
A Yes sir.
Q And that would probably be approximately the 

same as of today?
A No, it would not, not as of today, because one 

track is down now.
Q Well, this airbrake department is just a part of 

your production line?
A That is right.
Q And they work under the steel construction de­

partment?
A That is right, sir, the steel erection department.
Q The steel erection department?
A Yes.
Q Of course, they work on both steel cars, all-steel 

cars, and steel and wood cars?
A Yes.



129

Q Do these fifteen men that you mentioned all do the 
same [86] sort of work?

A No, they do different classes of work, but they all 
work on pipe.

Q They are all applying, cutting, or shaping, or in­
stalling this pipe?

A That is right. Some of them apply it, some of them 
shape it, some of them put on the angle bolts before it is 
put into place, some of them ream the pipe out, some of 
them put “U”  bolts around the pipe to hold on the pipe, 
and that is all on the application and the fabrication of 
the pipe.

Q You do not classify them as pipe fitters?
A No, we call them pipe men. We do not classify 

them as maintenance pipe men. We do not classify them 
as pipe fitters. * * * . *
[87] Q Do these men have any specific machines that 
they work on?

A The fellow that fabricates the pipe does, he has a 
pipe bender and a pipe threader, and a pipe cutter.

Q Of course, you buy all your pipe, you do not make 
any pipe there?

A No, the pipe is all bought.
Q And you cut it to the proper length?
A Yes.
Q And bend it?
A Yes.
Q And thread it?
A Yes.
Q And put the various cut-offs on?
A Yes.
Q Then, these men work, mostly, with the sort of 

tools that a plumber works with?
A Yes, I would say yes, only we have developed tools 

to eliminate the use of a lot of wrenches, where it is 
done by air. You just take the pipe and stick the angle



130

on the holder and come on and slip in the pipe and 
tighten it up, and you get a better fitting pipe joint. I 
wouldn’t class it entirely like plumbing. It is not plumb­
ing. It is production work.

Q Do those men work, do they do work in any other 
departments?
[88] A No sir, just in that department.

*  *  * - *

Q First, tell us what is the wheel and axle depart­
ment?

A The wheel and axle department is the department 
where these wheels are sent to us unbored. They have a 
rough bore, rather, a rough core. We bore those wheels 
to the dimensions to fit the axle. The axles are received 
by us rough turned and we machine them to fit the 
wheel. The two of them are pressed on together and that 
comprises the extent of the wheel and axle department.

Q Approximately how many employees do you have 
working in that department?

A Considering the night and day shifts, I would say 
we probably have sixteen, or maybe eighteen to twenty 
men.

Q Now, is that a part of your assembly line, or is 
this a step that takes place before it reaches the as­
sembly line?

A This is a preliminary step that has got to be done 
before [89] the trucks are assembled. It does, however, 
work in unison with the building of the trucks. In other 
words, we like to coordinate the fabrication and the 
boring of the wheels and the fabrication of the axles 
and the building of the trucks, and coordinate them with 
the building of the cars on the track, because there is 
only a limited amount of room and they have got to more 
or less coordinate.

Q Is that classified as a separate department, or is it 
a part of one of your larger departments?



131

A It is classified as a separate department, the wheel 
and axle and truck department is known as one on the 
payroll.

Q Wheel, axle and truck?
A Yes sir.
Q How are those employees paid?
A On piece work, with the exception, of course, of 

the foreman. That is the only man that is not on piece 
work, and the leaders.

Q You have a separate foreman for that department?
A Yes sir.
Q And then a leader on each shift?
A Yes.
Q Are those three men included in the figure you 

gave of the total number of employees?
A No sir, they are production men that I gave.
Q Do these employees there do any work in any other 

depart- [90] ments, or is all of their work concentrated 
in this wheel, axle and truck department?

A Their work is in that department. However, we 
sometimes have short periods and we try to move the 
men there.

Q But as long as the department is running they 
do their work there?

A Yes, they are confined strictly to that.
Q They do not do any work in the steel construction 

department?
A No sir.
Q Or the tool and die department?
A No sir.

-» * •* *

[91] Q Now, you mentioned some millwrights?
A Yes.
Q What department do they work in?
A The millwrights come under the maintenance de­

partment.



132

Q Now, this maintenance department, that is your 
overall-maintenance and repair crew?

A Yes.
Q Under whose supervision do those employees work?
A W. H. Stamps, who also has charge of the elec­

tricians.
Q The electricians, then, are part of the maintenance 

crew?
A That is right, that is the maintenance crew.
Q What is he, a master mechanic, Mr. Stamps, do 

you classify him as such?
A You might call him a master mechanic, although 

we do not classify him as that. We have him as foreman 
of the maintenance department.

Q Now, your millwrights perform the ordinary duties 
of millwrights, they make various repairs of different 
kinds?

A That is right.
*  #  *  *

Q Do they devote all of their time to millwright 
work?

A Yes.
Q They do not do any production work?

[92] A No sir.
Q They do not work in the tool and die shop, or in 

the production end?
A Not on production. They probably go in there in 

connection with, if they are doing a certain repair job 
to a machine, it may be that they wanted a certain 
thing turned, and they might go in there and help the 
fellow and show him what they want, or might go and 
cooperate with the machine shop.

Q As far as going in and helping in the machine 
shop on the machine, they don’t do that?

A They might go in there, if they wanted a casting 
drilled, if the fellow was busy, they might put the casting 
on there themselves and drill it.



133

Q How about their rates of pay, compared with the 
machinists?

A I would say they are about in line with the 
machinists.

*  *  *  *

Q But these millwrights are never transferred?
A No, they are all over the shop.

[93] Q I mean they are not transferred to other 
work?

A No, we don’t put them on production.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I think that is all. 
Q (By Mr. May) Mr. Sleeman, you testified that Mr. 

W. H. Stamps was your foreman of the maintenance 
department?

A Yes.
Q Now, isn’t there a foreman in charge of the elec­

tricians?
A We have an assistant foreman or a leader, as we 

call him, who has charge of the electricians. We also 
have a man in charge of the millwrights.

Q Now, this electrician, the lead electrician, what is 
his name?

A Marsh.
*  #  #  *

[94] Q Now, the powerhouse men, the four power­
house men, under whose supervision are they?

A Under Stamps and also Marsh.
Q In other words, Mr. Marsh is their immediate 

superior?
A He is the leader or foreman, that is right.
Q Is it the practice for your electricians to be trans­

ferred from maintenance to production work?
A We do not use any electricians on production work. 

* * * *
[95] Q They are hired as electricians?

A Yes, that is the number I gave you. They were 
electricians.



134

Q And these men work over the plant and perform 
maintenance, and are under the immediate supervision 
of Mr. Marsh?

A That is right, sir.
* * * *

[96] Q How many men, as you recall it, have you 
got in this one corner of the building of what the men 
call the machine shop?
[97] A These are the men in that department that I 
included.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: What is your whole 
total for that department?

THE WITNESS: There is 50 total on this roll as
of August 9th, that is for the men of the die and tool 
department.

Q (By Mr. Howard) That is in that corner of the 
building which I am speaking of as the machine shop?

A Yes sir, in the die and tool shop.
Q Will you name, to the best of your recollection 

and knowledge, the various types of machines, such as 
planers, lathes, drill presses, and such as that, which is 
in this particular shop?

A Yes, I think I can, I can almost give you all of 
them. We have four planers, we have two radial drills, 
we have two single drills there, and we have another 
little one over to the right, that makes three. Those 
radial drills, rather, one of them is used on production 
entirely, that is on the castings. We have a turret lathe, 
we have a boring mill, we have two shapers, we have 
another old machine there that we do not use, we have 
never turned it. We have a saw filing or dowel machine, 
it is called, we got, I think, a small lathe, and another 
intermediate lathe, and a large lathe, and then we have 
a machine for making, we make all of our drop forgings, 
and we have a die sealing machine.

Q You have a milling machine for cutting gears?
[98] A Most of our gears are sent out.



135

Q You cut some of your gears, however?
A We do in extreme cases, but as a rule, we find 

we can send them out better.
Q Well, do you have a milling machine in this shop?
A Yes, we have a milling machine.
Q Now, these employees in this particular shop, their 

duties is confined to this particular shop practically all 
of the time?

A Yes.
* * * *

Q Isn’t it a fact that these maintenance men or 
millwrights, as you term them in this particular plant, 
whenever they see [99] some particular machine break 
down, and some parts has to be repaired, they are taken 
to the machine shop, if there is something that has to 
have some machine work done it?

A Oh, yes, they are usually taken to the machine 
shop to be machined.

Q In other words, that is what this particular shop 
is for?

A Primarily, yes, with the exception of the dies and 
tools,

Q Well, the dies is machined in there also?
A It is a combination department and it is just called 

the die and tool department.
Q In your payroll you call it the die and tool depart­

ment?
A Yes.
Q But it takes in this machine shop?
A Yes.
Q In other words, ordinarily what we call in plants 

machine shops?
A Yes, but it is not put there primarily for mainte­

nance, it is primarily put there for making dies and 
tools.



136

Q Well, in the making of dies and tools that goes on 
these punching machines and stamping machines, and 
they are used in production?

A That is right.
Q In other words, it is to machine these dies?
A Yes.
Q You get them in the rough and they are planed 

in this shop?
[100] A Yes.

Q Now, you have a crane in that shop that don’t go 
anywhere, but just in that separate shop, is that correct? 
In other words, it is for that shop?

A It is supposed to be confined to that particular 
locality. However, we find sometimes, when it is nec­
essary, we have to run it to the other departments, 
probably at night, like when we had three hundred cars 
to be unloaded, and we took that crane out there and 
unloaded them.

Q But ordinarily?
A Ordinarily that crane is confined to that depart­

ment. # •* * *
Q And then you come down to the axle, the wheel 

and axle shop?
A Yes.
Q I don’t care to make any repetition as to what you 

testified to doing, but in that axle shop, in getting these 
castings, the wheels, you say that you get the rough core 
and then you have to, you have a boring mill which you 
use before you put this wheel on, that is correct, isn’t it?

A That is right.
Q It is bored out before you put it on?
A That is right.

[101] Q Then, you have the axle and that goes through 
about three different operations. In other words, they 
are roughed down on one machine, and then they are 
finished as far as the heel on the second machine and



137

then they are put on the third machine for what is called 
burnishing?

A Yes.
Q In other words, this burnishing is simply that the 

axle revolves and instead of being cut it is rolled?
A That is right.
Q In other words, in some shops that is called rolling 

the axle?
A Yes.
Q And I believe in this plant it is called burnishing?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you have a wheel press in there where 

you press these wheels on this axle?
A Yes.
Q And you got also a tool grinder in this wheel and 

axle shop, isn’t that correct?
A Yes, we have a wheel and tool grinder. It depends 

on the amount of work. At the present time, we have a 
tool grinder, but sometimes we do not have.

Q Mr. Sleeman, in the shop, and these labor organi­
zations, include the machinists that we claim to repre­
sent, or the right to represent these men in this plant, in 
your dealings in the [102] classifications, don’t you call 
these men machinists in this wheel and axle shop? In 
other words, as a common term, wouldn’t you say they 
are machinists?

A Absolutely not, because we have taken a man right 
from the farm, and he is the best production man we 
ever had there, right from the farm and we put him on 
wheel boring, and he did a better job, he was a natural 
born wheel borer.

Q I appreciate the fact that you can put a man on 
there and in other crafts in that way, and I also ap­
preciate the fact that you can take a chimpanzee and 
show him the operations in some of these departments, 
and then put him on a chain where he cannot run away, 
and probably he can do that, but I am speaking in gen­



138

eral terms, that is the general opinion, that it is ma­
chinist’s work, set up in the nature of machinist’s work 
in this wheel and axle shop.

A I wouldn’t say that, I would say they are machine 
helpers, it is a machine helper’s job. He is confined to 
that principally, to that class of work, and he doesn’t 
have to be a machinist.

Q Well, would you say he is a machine helper ?
A He is a machine helper.
Q Now, you have a crane in that department?
A Yes.
Q That is confined to that department?
A Yes.

[103] Q I mean ordinarily?
A It is confined to the wheel and axle and truck 

department, but does other work.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Is that operator of 

that crane included in the figure you gave us of the 
total number of employees in that department?

A No, he comes under a different crane department.
Q In a different crane department?
A Yes.
Q And he is not carried on your payroll—
A (Interrupting) As a tool and die man, no sir.
Q I mean under the wheel, axle and truck depart­

ment?
A No, he comes under the crane operators,

* * * *
[105] Q Now, these millwrights, like I said, in the 
language of our organization, we would term, as a mill­
wright, a man who goes over the plant and repairs 
machines in that plant. In other words, we do not class 
them as millwrights, we class them as machinists. Now, 
do you make a distinction in your plant and call them 
millwrights, and make a separation from machinists?

A No, the millwrights are not the machinists in our 
plant. Those are the men who can tear down machines



139

and put back wheels, and take off bolts, and put them 
back on and line up bolts, and pour babbit on bearings 
and replace bearings, and tend to the whole system to 
see that it is properly put in. The machinist was the 
man at one time who used to do like you are talking 
about, we had machine shop men go around and do the 
work. *- * * #
[106] Q (By Mr. Howard) Now, in this air work that 
the Trial Examiner was questioning you on before, you 
got what is known as “ A.B.” valves that you put on these 
cars?

A Yes.
Q These airbrake men put on all the airbrake equip­

ment?
A Yes.
Q And your cylinders and the valves, I believe you 

call them “ A.B.” valves?
A Yes.
Q Do you have a test rack in there?
A We have no test rack.
Q You have no means of testing these valves out at 

the plant?
A We test the air pressure to see if it will stand 

so much pressure on the pipe line, after we put it in. 
We have air [107] gauges, but we do not have a test 
rack. We do not need a test rack, the test rack is only 
used to check up the <!A.B.” valve itself, but they come 
in on new equipment to us, so it is different from the 
railroads. * * * *
[108] REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q (By Mr. Mitch) Mr. Sleeman, you testified, I be­
lieve, that there were about seventeen men on your pay­
roll designated as electricians. I think that figure is 
right.

A Seventeen men?



140

MR. CABANISS: Electricians.
[109] THE WITNESS: Seventeen in the maintenance
department as electricians. That is separate from the 
powerhouse operators.

Q (By Mr. Mitch) Of that seventeen how many work 
in this well defined area or room, as you called it, that 
is designated the electrical shop?

A I answered that before, I think. I answered in this 
way, by saying before that we did not have any number 
confined there; there are one or two fellows, usually, 
who are there and as the work piles up, and it is nec­
essary, for instance, if we are running high on reamers, 
we might go into a different department and get a bunch 
to get them to get those reamers out and get the work 
going, but we do get it out of there.

Q And they are designated as machinists working 
in any part of the shop?

A Yes.
Q And the powerhouse is the same way?
A Yes.
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) You say when the 

work piles up in the electrical department you pull the 
men in from the other departments, the department of 
electricians?

A Yes. In order to make it clear, our track, ordi­
narily, we have three or four men on the track, and our 
reamers are high frequency electric reamers, and very 
frequently they get out of whack, and they take them 
to the electrical department [110] and fix them up, and 
when we haven’t got any reamers on the track, or the 
track is not running, we get the electrical men and get 
them down there so they can get to the reamers down 
there and then go on other work.

RECROSS EXAMINATION
Q (By Mr. May) You have a well defined system of 

apprentices, in other words, if a man is hired in your



141

plant as an electrician, he don’t have to serve as an 
apprentice?

A No, as a rule, our operations have been so up and 
down that by the time we get an apprentice where we 
can use him, why, we go down, and we have to lay off 
the apprentice and keep the good men, and so, that is 
the reason we have been trying this co-op student system. 
Of course, it is a little better work in a way.

Q Let us assume that you needed another man to do 
electrical work, and he was designated as an electrician, 
a man who does that type of work, where would you have 
to go to get him?

A Where would I get him?
Q Yes, where would you find him?
A Well, we usually have a number of applications 

on file for electricians and machinists, and we just na­
turally go to our employment file and find one.

Q Do you sometimes hire, from another portion of 
your plant, a man who was put on that type of work?

A We would, if we had a fellow come to us and tell 
us he [111] wanted to be an electrician, we have had 
men to come to us and say they would like to do it, and 
we try him out and sometimes he fails and sometimes 
he does not.

Q I assume you use the same general plan in your 
employment, in getting men, as described for the ma­
chinists?

A That is right, yes.
Q You said that if a person employed in your plant, 

in some other department, rather than the electrical 
department, made an application to work as an elec­
trician, that you would give him that employment, but 
I presume you naturally make some investigation as to 
whether that man was capable to perform the electrical 
work, wouldn’t you, or would you consider him different 
than an electrician?



142

A When a man applies to us for a job as an elec­
trician, he would naturally make an application, and if 
we were going to hire him we would take the information 
where he worked, where he worked before, and check 
it up to see if the man can do the work. That is the 
natural thing. But, that does not prove true in all of our 
occupations. We have had men who we have not had 
the time to check up, we put them up there and found 
out that they couldn’t do it.

Q Also it is true, in hiring new workers to be placed 
in the electrical department as electricians, you do make 
an electrician determine their qualifications to do the 
work desired?
[112] A As a rule, yes.

Q Is there any such thing as a probationary period 
for employees in the skilled crafts, or the skilled work 
at your plant, to determine whether that man is capable 
of performing the work desired of him?

A We have not had any probationary period other 
than, very frequently, if  we are doubtful that the man 
can perform the work, we will give him a trial to see if 
he can do all right, and if he cannot, why, we usually 
tell him that we gave him a chance on it. We don’t know 
whether he can do it or not.

Q But, you are of the opinion, I trust, that you can­
not just take and pick up anyone and put them out to 
perform electrical work?

A Electrical welding?
Q Electrical work.
A Well, you mean— will you tell me what electrical 

work you mean?
Q I mean in this specific instance in your plant, to 

do the work in your plant?
A And electrical welding?
Q Yes, I will take the electrical welding.
A Well, I think it would be sometimes dangerous to 

put anybody out there into our powerhouse. As a matter



143

of fact, I am afraid of electricity and I wouldn’t touch 
it myself, I keep away from it, and when I do it myself 
I don’t ask the [113] other fellow to do what I will not 
do. We like to know what experience a man has had, 
and what he has been doing, instead of just shooting up 
the works. * * * *
[128] J. L. GIGLIO
a witness called by and on behalf of the Federal Labor 
Union, Intervener, having been first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q (By Trial Examiner McRee) Where do you live, 

Mr. Giglio?
A 1012 Fulton Avenue, Birmingham.
Q What is your business or occupation?
A I am an organizer for the American Federation of 

Labor.
Q A general organizer for the AF of L?
A Yes sir.
Q And you are appearing in this hearing repre­

senting what organization?
A The Federal Organization of the American Federa­

tion of Labor.
Q Now, is that one Federal Labor Union, or, explain 

to us what that organization is?
A The Federal Organization in this case is an or­

ganization that we take in all of the industrial workers 
with exceptions. Let me put it this way: The American 
Federation of Labor is a craft organization. We go in as 
Federal Organizations and organize these men and then 
the different crafts comes in and takes their prorata 
share of the men, and deal with their organizations, such 
as the machinists and the millwrights, and [129] on 
down the line there, leaving me the rest of the men,



144

black and white, common laborers, and mechanics that 
is not stipulated in the Electrical Workers or the Ma­
chinists Organization.

-K- *

[130] Q At the present time you are claiming to rep­
resent all the employees of the Pullman Company, ex­
clusive of those who are represented by the International 
Association of Machinists, those represented by the In­
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the 
supervisory employees, including foremen, assistant fore­
men, leaders and superintendents?

A Well, I don’t know about the leaders. If the leaders 
have the power to hire and fire, of course, we could ex­
clude them, but if they cannot hire and fire, but just 
merely got the title there as foremen, then, we do take 
them. * * * *

[132] CROSS EXAMINATION
* # * *

Q (By Mr. Beddow) Suppose you went to Mr. Slee- 
man’s plant and the machinists [133] were not there, 
who would you take, who would take them in the Ma­
chinists Union?

A I would take them in if they wanted to join.
Q In the Machinists Union?
A No sir, I would take them in the Federal Union 

and let the Machinists Union take them from the Fed­
eral Union.

Q Suppose, however, you had in that plant a number 
of negro workers who were helpers to machinists out 
there, would you take them in?

A I would take them in the Federal Union, yes.
Q Would they be eligible to join the Machinists Union 

when they came after them?
A I cannot answer for the Machinists Union.



145

Q You don’t know whether they would or not?
A There is, the Machinists have a provision in the 

constitution to take care of helpers.
Q Do they have a provision to take care of negro 

helpers?
A Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I don’t know that

that line of questioning adds anything to this. There 
has been no testimony that there are any negro helpers 
involved in the machine shop.

MR. BEDDOW: There are only two and it is my
information that they cannot belong—

MR. M AY: Mr. Examiner, are we going into a race
question [134] here, or are we talking about the facts in 
the case?

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I made my state­
ment. I don’t think that this line of questioning has 
anything to do with this witness’ testimony at all.

Q (By Mr. Beddow) All right, you say you let them 
come in and get them if they wanted them, is that right?

A They got to have jurisdiction over them. They 
don’t get what they want.

Q And you don’t know whether they would take that 
jurisdiction?

A Under their constitution they would have it.
* * * *

[143] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: One thing I
want to get clear in the record, it may not be clear on 
the record, and I want a statement from the representa­
tive of the Machinists as to its contention as to the ap­
propriate bargaining unit. He had a preliminary state­
ment this morning, but there has been a great deal of 
testimony about the work of the employees in these 
departments, and I want to clear it up as much as pos­
sible. Are you prepared to make such a statement at 
this time, Mr. Howard?



146
MR. HOWARD: At this time I want to offer the

constitution of the Grand Lodge, District and Local 
Lodges, International Association of Machinists, and 
Page V, and I want to refer to the heading there “ Juris­
diction of the International Association of Machinists” , 
and introduce that, and come on down to Lines 28 and 
29, “ Classification of Work Included” .

Also Page VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the Constitu­
tion.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You are offering a
copy of this Constitution as an exhibit?

MR. HOWARD: An exhibit on the classification of
the work covering the men that we claim to represent 
over at the [144] Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing 
Company at Bessemer, inasmuch as we use, usually use 
the term, in calling them machinists, that it includes ma­
chinists, apprentices, helpers, welders, both electric and 
oxy-acetylene, and millwrights.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: To clear the record,
then, you are offering now a printed pamphlet entitled: 
“ Constitution of the Grand Lodge, District and Local 
Lodges, International Association of Machinists” .

Is there any objection to the introduction of this ex­
hibit?

MR. MITCH: Is that offered for the purpose of de­
fining what unit they are contending for now, or the 
jurisdiction of their organization?

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Mr. Howard, you
are offering this to show what jurisdiction your organi­
zation has, and what employees are eligible for member­
ship in your organization?

MR. HOWARD: That is right. In other words, we
term millwrights, we claim, are machinists. Ordinarily 
the term “ Machinist” covers millwrights.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Wait a minute. This
exhibit is received as I.N. Exhibit 1.

(The document above referred to was marked I.N.
Exhibit No. 1 and received in evidence.)



147

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Mr. Howard, you
might be a little more specific than you were this morn­
ing, after hearing the [145] testimony of Mr. Sleeman, 
as to which employees or classification of employees you 
desire to be included in the appropriate unit.

MR. HOWARD: I thought I covered it just then.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Well, let me ask

you—
MR. BEDDOW: Is he testifying now? If he is, I

suggest he be put under oath.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: No, I am asking

him to make this statement at the counsel table.
Mr. Sleeman testified that they had only, I think, 

nineteen machinists in that tool and die or die and tool 
department, I have forgotten which, and there were 
maintenance machinists, there were handymen or helpers, 
there were machine operators and there were die men. 
Now, do you take all of those classifications in that 
department in?

MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: In addition to those

classifications I have named, they had tool room men 
and tool room helpers and we had cranemen and crane 
operators’ helpers.

MR. HOWARD: There were more than two in the
tool room, as I recall it.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: I mean one on each
shift, I think was the testimony. Do you take in all of 
the employees Mr. Sleeman testified about as being in 
this tool and die room?

MR. HOWARD: That is correct.
[146] TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Does that in­
clude the man who is described as the templete man?

MR. HOWARD: No, we don’t take the template.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You do take in the 

tool room men and the crane operators in that part of 
the plan?



148

MR. HOWARD: The crane operators and the tool
and die and machine shop. I believe we identified them, 
is that correct?

TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : That is correct.
MR. HOWARD: And in the wheel and axle, we

claim them, but we claim nobody in the forge shop at all.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You claim all of the

employees in the wheel and axle, exclusive of the super­
visory employees?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, according to what was testified
this morning.

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That will exclude
the foreman and the assistant foreman?

MR. HOWARD: Yes sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, do you ask for

the crane operators in the wheel and axle department?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC R EE : Now, you are asking

for all of the employees that have been referred to here 
as millwrights?

MR. HOWARD: That is right, and the airbrake men.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: You are asking for 

all of the [147] employees in the airbrake department, 
and when I say all of the employees in those departments, 
I mean exclusive of supervisory.

MR. HOWARD: That is the understanding.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And you also exclude

the clerical employees?
MR. HOWARD: That is right, we exclude the cleri-

Cell
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: And you are also

asking for all of the welders, both production welders 
and maintenance welders?

MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Now, do you think

that defines your unit?
MR. HOWARD: I think so.



149

TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Anything else?
MR. BEDDOW: He said he took all of the hookers

and the crane operators and whatnot.
MR. HOWARD: I did not say hookers.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: He did not claim

the hookers.
MR. HOWARD: I didn’t claim the hookers, no.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That would be in

both the tool and die and the wheel and axle.
MR. HOWARD: I don’t claim the hookers anywhere.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Neither one of the

hookers?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: Anything else by

any of the [148] parties?
MR. BEDDOW: Did you say you claim the cranemen

in the axle department, too?
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: So I understood. Is 

that correct?
MR. HOWARD: Yes, just in the wheel and axle and

the tool and die and machine shop, that is all.
MR. BEDDOW: Let me ask one thing, and I want

this for the record and no other reason. Part of those 
men, cranemen out there are negro workers, and even 
though they are in your department, do you claim those 
negro cranemen and negro hookers, or whatnot?

MR. HOWARD: We claim them in that department.
MR. BEDDOW: You claim them, even though they

are colored?
MR. HOWARD: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: But not the hookers,

you do not claim the hookers in any department?
MR. HOWARD: That is right.
TRIAL EXAMINER MC REE: That was my under­

standing.
*  *  *  *



150

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 14

In the Matter of
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company 

and Steel Workers Organizing Committee

Case No. R-2952.— Decided September 12, 1941

Jurisdiction: railroad car manufacturing industry.

Investigation and Certification of Representatives: ex­
istence of question: refusal by Company to grant
exclusive recognition to unions involved; elections 
necessary.

Units Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: single or 
separate units comprising: (1) all electrical employees 
in maintenance department, and powerhouse and sub­
station operators, excluding foremen, leaders, and cleri­
cal employees; (2) all machinists, apprentices and 
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die 
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom 
helpers, handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, produc­
tion and maintenance welders, employees in wheel, 
axle and truck shop, except crane hookers, and em­
ployees in air-brake department excluding foremen, 
leaders, and clerical employees; and (3) all production 
and maintenance employees including watchmen, and 
plant protection employees but excluding foremen, 
leaders and clerical employees; determination of, de­
pendent upon elections.

Mr. Jelks H. Cabaniss, of Birmingham, Ala., for the 
Company.

Mr. William E. Mitch and Mr. Noel R. Beddow, of 
Birmingham, Ala., for the S. W. 0. C.

Mr. J. R. May, of Montgomery, Ala., for the I.B.E.W.



151
Mr. J. H. Howard, of Washington, D.C., and Mr. J. D. 

Baumgardner, of Birmingham, Ala., for the I. A. M.
Mr. J. L. Giglio, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Federal 

Labor Union.
Mr. Harry Cooper, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION
AND

DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 

Statement of the Case

On August 1, 1941, Steel Workers Organizing Com­
mittee, herein called the S. W. 0. C., filed with the Re­
gional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) 
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce 
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of 
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bes­
semer, Alabama, herein called the Company, and request­
ing an investigation and certification of representatives 
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations 
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On August 20, 
1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called 
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act, 
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations 
Board Rules and Regulations— Series 2, as amended, 
ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional 
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate 
hearing upon due notice.

On August 21, 1941, the Regional Director issued a 
notice of hearing, copies of which were duly seived upon 
the Company, the S. W. 0. C., and the following^ labor 
organizations claiming to represent employees directly 
affected by the investigation: Federal Labor Union,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein

35 NLRB, No. 78



152

called the Federal Labor Union; International Associa­
tion of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federa­
tion of Labor, herein called the I. A. M.; and Interna­
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with 
the American Federation of Labor, herein called the 
I. B. E. W. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on 
August 28, 1941, at Birmingham, Alabama, before John 
C. McRee, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the 
Chief Trial Examiner. At the beginning of the hearing, 
the Federal Labor Union, the I. A. M., and the I. B. E. W. 
presented motions to intervene which were granted by 
the Trial Examiner. The Company, the S. W. 0. C., 
the Federal Labor Union, the I. A. M., and the 
I. B. E. W. were represented by counsel or official repre­
sentatives and participated in the hearing. Full oppor­
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit­
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues 
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hear­
ing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions 
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The 
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. 
The rulings are hereby affirmed.

Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes 
the following:

F in d in g s  op  F a c t

I. THE BUSINESS OP THE COMPANY

The Company is a Delaware corporation operating a 
plant at Bessemer, Alabama, where it manufactures rail­
road cars. All manufactured cars are sold to railroads 
engaged in interstate commerce. The Company admits, 
for the purposes of this proceeding, that it is engaged in 
commerce within the meaning of the Act.



158

II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED

Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor or­
ganization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or­
ganizations, admitting employees of the Company to 
membership.

Federal Labor Union, International Association of 
Machinists, and International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, are labor organizations affiliated with the 
American Federation of Labor, admitting employees of 
the Company to membership.

III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION

In July 1941, the S. W. 0. C. requested of the Com­
pany recognition as the exclusive bargaining representa­
tive of its employees. The Company failed to recognize
S. W. 0. C. as such representative. In August, the 
I. B. E. W., the I. A. M., and the Federal Labor Union 
each sought exclusive recognition by the respondent as 
bargaining representatives of certain of its employees. 
It does not appear that the Company granted such rec­
ognition to any of these organizations. In July or Au­
gust, the Company informed the Regional Director of 
its desire that the Board decide the question of repre­
sentation. From a statement of the Trial Examiner made 
at the hearing, it appears that each of the labor organi­
zations here involved represents a substantial number of 
the Company’s employees in the unit claimed by each to 
be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.1 1

1 The S. W. 0. C. submitted to- the Trial Examiner 1,053 author­
ization and membership- cards. The Trial Examiner examined them 
and stated that 1,039 cards- appeared to bear genuine original 
signatures, that 880 cards- were dated between April 1 and August 
14, 1941, 95 between April 1 and December 30, 1940, and that the 
remainder were undated. The Trial Examiner selected 100 cards 
at random, checked the signatures thereon against the- pay roll fo-r 
the week ending August 9, 1941, and found 92 to be the- names of



154

We find that a question has arisen concerning the 
representation of employees of the Company.

IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING 
REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE

We find that the question concerning representation 
which has arisen, occurring in connection with the opera­
tions of the Company described in Section I above, has 
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, 
and commerce among the several States and tends to lead 
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce 
and the free flow of commerce.

persons appearing on said pay roll. There are about 1,168 employees 
in the unit claimed by the S. W. O. C. to be appropriate.

The I.B.E.W. submitted to the Trial Examiner a membership 
dues receipts book and a membership application receipts book, 
both books containing the receipts of a total of 17 persons who 
were alleged to be employees o f the Company. All these receipts 
were dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner found that of 
the 17 names listed on these receipts, 16 appeared on the August 
9 pay roll. There are 21 employees in the unit claimed by the 
I.B.E.W. to be appropriate.

The I. A. M. submitted to the Trial Examiner 137 authorization 
cards dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner stated that 
all of the cards appeared to bear genuine original signatures, and 
that, among 30 cards selected at random, 26 bore the names of 
persons appearing on the August 9 pay roll. There are about 135 
employees in the unit claimed by the I. A. M. to be appropriate, 
exclusive o f millwrights, whose number the record does not disclose.

The Federal Labor Union submitted to the Trial Examiner 248 
authorization and membership cards, of which 236 appeared to the 
Trial Examiner to bear genuine, original signatures, and 221 of 
the 236 were dated during August 1941. The Trial Examiner 
selected 60 cards at random and found that 49 bore the names of 
persons listed on the August 9 pay roll. There are about 1,000 
employees in the unit claimed by the Federal Labor Union to be 
appropriate.



155

V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT

The S. W. 0. C. contends that production and mainte­
nance employees, excluding foremen, superintendents, 
and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for 
the purposes of collective bargaining. The I. B. E. W. 
urges that a separate unit of all electrical employees in 
the maintenance department, and power-house and sub­
station operators, excluding supervisory and clerical em­
ployees, is appropriate. The I. A. M. claims that a sepa­
rate unit composed of machinists, apprentices and 
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die 
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, 
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and 
maintenance welders, employees in the wheel, axle, and 
truck shop, except crane hookers, and employees in the 
air-brake department, excluding from each of the fore­
going groups supervisory and clerical employees, is ap­
propriate. The Federal Labor Union asserts that all em­
ployees, including clerical employees, watchmen, and 
plant-protection employees, but excluding employees in 
the units claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W., 
and supervisory employees with authority to hire and 
discharge, comprise an appropriate unit. The Company 
takes no position with respect to the appropriate unit.

The evidence indicates that many of the employees in 
the separate units urged by the I. B. E. W. and the 
I. A. M. are skilled employees, and all of such employees 
appear to come under the craft jurisdictions of these two 
unions. On the other hand, evidence was introduced to 
show that the manufacture of railroad freight cars at 
the Company’s plant is an integrated production process, 
and that an industrial unit, including the employees 
claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W., is appro­
priate. So far as the record shows, there has been no 
history of collective bargaining either by the craft or in­



156

dustrial unions.2 Under the circumstances herein pre­
sented, we find that the employees in the units claimed 
by the I. B. E. W. and the I. A. M. could function either 
as separate units or as part of a single industrial unit. 
Accordingly, we shall direct that elections be held, (1) 
among the employees, with the exclusions specified below, 
claimed by the I. B. E. W. to constitute an appropriate 
unit, to determine whether they wish to be represented 
by the I. B. E. W., by the S. W. 0. C., or by neither of 
these organizations; (2) among the employees, with the 
exclusions specified below, claimed by the I. A. M. to 
constitute an appropriate unit, to determine whether 
they wish to be represented by the I. A. M., by the 
S. W. 0. C., or by neither of these organizations. On 
the results of these elections will depend the appropriate 
unit. If the employees in either of these two groups 
select a bargaining representative other than the repre­
sentative selected by the employees in the plant-wide in­
dustrial unit, they will constitute a separate and distinct 
appropriate unit. If they choose the same representative 
as the employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they 
will be merged into a single unit with such employees.3

Supervisory employees. Supervisory employees at the 
Company’s plant, consisting of foremen and leaders, have 
authority to hire and discharge employees. All parties 
apparently desire, and since they are major supervisory 
employees, we shall direct, that these employees be ex­
cluded from the craft and industrial units.4

2 The S. W. 0. C. attempted to negotiate a contract with the 
Company in 1937 and again in 1941. However, the parties never 
entered into a contract and the character of the negotiations does 
not appear.

3 Matter of The Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal 
Polishers Union, Local No. 3, et al., 3 N.L.R.B. 294.

4 James E. Stark Co. and Upholsterers’ International Union of 
North America, Local No. 255, 33 N.L.R.B. 1076.



157

Clerical employees. The S. W. 0. C. desires to exclude 
clerical employees from the appropriate unit. The
I. B. E. W. and the I. A. M. also seek to exclude clerical 
employees from the unit each seeks as appropriate. The 
Federal Labor Union, on the other hand, requests the 
inclusion of clerical employees in the unit of employees 
it claims as appropriate. The Federal Labor Union, how­
ever, has not specified which employees it refers to as 
clerical, or introduced any evidence regarding the duties 
of the clerical employees it desires included in the unit. 
The plant manager included in his pay-roll list of “ cleri­
cal”  employees all employees in engineering, pay-roll, 
timekeeping, and accounting departments. Apparently all 
these employees work in the Company’s general office. 
They are salaried employees. The evidence does not dis­
close whether there are any clerical employees in the 
plant. Under these circumstances, and since the inter­
ests of the employees in the engineering, pay-roll, time­
keeping, and accounting departments are distinct from 
those of employees in a unit of production employees, we 
shall exclude all clerical employees from the units herein 
alleged to be appropriate.

Watchmen and plant-protection employees. The Fed­
eral Labor Union desires the inclusion of these employees 
in the industrial unit. The S. W. 0. C. has not expressed 
its position with regard to these employees. We shall 
include the watchmen and plant-protection employees in 
the industrial unit.5

We find that all production and maintenance em­
ployees, including watchmen and plant-protection em­
ployees, but excluding superintendents, foremen, leaders, 
and clerical employees, may properly constitute a unit 
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining 
which would insure to the employees of the Company

5 M a tter  o f  The Q uaker Oats Com pany and U nited C ereal W ork ­
ers L ocal Industrial Union, N o. 1105, 32 N.L.R.B. 312.



158

the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to 
collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies 
of the Act. As indicated above, the employees in the 
units claimed by the I. A. M. and the I. B. E. W. may 
or may not be included within such unit, depending on 
the results of the elections we shall order. We shall, 
therefore, make no final determination of the appropriate 
unit or units pending the elections to be conducted 
among the employees in the craft units.

VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES

We have heretofore decided that separate elections will 
be held to determine the collective bargaining representa­
tives for the employees in the craft units. We find that 
the question concerning representation of the employees 
in the industrial unit can best be resolved by means of 
an election by secret ballot.

The parties stipulated that the pay roll for the week 
ending August 9, 1941, would be satisfactory for the 
purpose of determining eligibility to vote. We shall give 
effect to the desires of the parties in this respect and 
shall accordingly direct that the employees of the Com­
pany eligible to vote in the elections shall be those who 
were employed during the pay-roll period ending Au­
gust 9, 1941, subject to such limitations and additions as 
are set forth in the Direction of Elections herein.

At the hearing the labor organizations requested that 
their names appear on the ballot as follows: Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466; Federal 
Labor Union, affiliated with the American Federation of 
Labor; International Association of Machinists, Local 
No. 359; and International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, Local No. 287. These requests are hereby 
granted.



159

Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon 
the entire record in the case, the Board makes the 
following:

Conclusion op Law

A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning 
the representation of employees of Pullman-Standard 
Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, within 
the meaning of Section 9(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) 
of the National Labor Relations Act.

DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the 

National Labor Relations Board by Section 9(c) of the 
National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article 
III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules 
and Regulations— Series 2, as amended, it is hereby

Directed that, as part of the investigation authorized 
by the Board to ascertain representatives for the pur­
poses of collective bargaining with Pullman-Standard 
Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, elec­
tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as soon as pos­
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date 
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of 
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in 
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations 
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules 
and Regulations:

1. Among all electrical employees in the maintenance 
department, and power-house and sub-station operators 
of the Company, who were employed during the pay-roll 
period ending August 9, 1941, including employees who 
did not work during such pay-roll period because they 
were ill or on vacation or in the active military service 
or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, 
but excluding foremen, leaders, clerical employees, and 
employees who have since quit or been discharged for



160

cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented 
by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466 
or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
Local No. 287, for the purposes of collective bargaining, 
or by neither; and

2. Among all machinists, apprentices and helpers, em­
ployees in tool and die shop classified as die men, 
machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, 
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and 
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck 
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake 
department, who were employed by the Company during 
the pay-roll period ending August 9, 1941, including 
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period 
because they were ill or on vacation or in the active 
military service or training of the United States, or 
temporarily laid off, but excluding foremen, leaders, and 
clerical employees, and employees who have since quit 
or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they 
desire to be represented by Steel Workers Organizing 
Committee, Local No. 1466, or by International Associa­
tion of Machinists, Local No. 359, for purposes of collec­
tive bargaining, or by neither; and

3. Among all production and maintenance employees 
of the Company who were employed during the pay-roll 
period ending August 9, 1941, including watchmen, plant- 
protection employees, employees who did not work during 
such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation 
or in the active military service or training of the United 
States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding superin­
tendents, foremen, leaders, clerical employees, employees 
in groups 1 and 2 above, and employees who have since 
quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether 
they desire to be represented by Steel Workers Organiz­
ing Committee, Local No. 1466 or by Federal Labor 
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.



161

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 15
In the Matter of Pullman-Standard Car Manufac­

turing Company and Steel Workers Organizing
Committee

Case No. R-2952

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION 
AND

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 

November 19, 1941
On September 12, 1941, the National Labor Relations 

Board, herein called the Board, issued its Decision and 
Direction of Elections in the above-entitled proceeding.1 
Pursuant to said Direction of Elections, elections by 
secret ballot were conducted on October 7, 1941, under 
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director 
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia). On October 16, 
1941, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article 
III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules 
and Regulations— Series 2, as amended, issued an Elec­
tion Report, copies of which were duly served upon the 
parties. No objections to the conduct of the ballot or to 
the Election Report were filed by any of the parties.

As to the balloting and the results thereof, the Regional 
Director reported as follows:

G roup N o. l

1. Total number eligible .............................................. -........
2. Total ballots, cast ................................................................
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ

izing Committee, Local No. 1466 ................—............
4. Total number of ballots cast for International Brother

hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 287 ...............

1 35 N.L.R.B., No, 78.

36 N.L.R.B. No. 230

22
18

4

13



162

5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.-- 1
6. Total number of challenged ballots .................-..............  0
7. Total number o f void ballots ........................... .................  0
8. Total number of blank ballots ......................................... 0

Group No. 2
1. Total number eligible .......................................................  163
2. Total ballots cast ................................................................ 151
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ­

izing Committee, Local No. 1466 ................................  18
4. Total number of ballots cast for International Associ­

ation o f Machinists, Local No. 359 ............................  127
5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.... 5
6. Total number of challenged ballots .............- .....- ........-• 1
7. Total number of void ballots ................................. .........  0
8. Total number o f blank ballots ................................ ........ 0

Group No. 3
1. Total number eligible ................................................ ....... 987
2. Total ballots cast ................................................................ 904
3. Total number o f ballots cast for Steel Workers Organ­

izing Committee, Local No'. 1466 ..............................  736
4. Total number of ballots cast for Federal Labor Union,

Affiliated with the American Federation o f Labor.... I l l
5. Total number of votes cast for neither organization.... 24
6. Total number of challenged ballots .................................. 28
7. Total number of void ballots ................................   4
8. Total number of blank ballots ......................................— 1

Since the number of challenged ballots cannot affect 
the results of the election, the Regional Director made no 
report or recommendation regarding said challenges, and 
we find it unnecessary to make any determination with 
respect thereto.

In the Decision and Direction of Elections previously 
referred to the Board stated:

. . .  we shall direct that elections be held, (1) among 
the employees, with the exclusions specified below, 
claimed by the I. B. E. W. to constitute an appro­
priate unit, to determine whether they wish to be 
represented by the I. B. E. W., by the S. W. 0. C.,



163

or by neither of these organizations; (2) among the 
employees, with the exclusion specified below, claimed 
by the I. A. M. to constitute an appropriate unit, to 
determine whether they wish to be represented by the
I. A. M., by the S. W. 0. C., or by neither of these 
organizations. On the results of these elections will 
depend the appropriate unit. If the employees in 
either of these two groups select a bargaining rep­
resentative other than the representative selected by 
the employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they 
will constitute a separate and distinct appropriate 
unit. If they choose the same representative as the 
employees in the plant-wide industrial unit, they 
will be merged into a single unit with such em­
ployees.

Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the 
Board makes the following:

Su p p l e m e n t a l  F in d in g s  op  F a c t

We find that all electrical employees in the maintenance 
department, and powerhouse and substation operators, of 
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bes­
semer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical 
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes 
of collective bargaining.

We find that all machinists, apprentices and helpers, 
employees in tool and die shop classified as die men, 
machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, 
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and 
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck 
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake 
department,2 of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing

2 It is to be noted that the Board intended in its Decision and 
Direction of Elections to include employees in air-brake department 
in the unit sought by the I. A. M.



164

Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen, 
leaders, and clerical employees, constitute a unit appro­
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.

We find that all production and maintenance em­
ployees of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Com­
pany, Bessemer, Alabama, including watchmen and plant 
protection employees, but excluding superintendents, fore­
men, leaders, clerical employees, and employees enumer­
ated above in the last two preceding paragraphs, 
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec­
tive bargaining.

We find that the above units will insure to the em­
ployees of the Company the full benefit of their right to 
self-organization and to collective bargaining, and other­
wise will effectuate the policies of the Act.

Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon 
the entire record in the case, the Board makes the 
following:

S u p p l e m e n t a l  C o n c l u s io n s  of  L a w

1. All electrical employees in the maintenance depart­
ment, and powerhouse and substation operators, of 
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse­
mer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical 
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes 
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 
(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.

2. All machinists, apprentices and helpers, employees 
in tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera­
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handymen, crane­
men, millwrights, production and maintenance welders, 
employees in wheel, axle, and truck shop, except crane 
hookers, and employees in air-brake department, of Pull­
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, 
Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders, and clerical em­



165

ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of 
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) 
of the National Labor Relations Act.

3. All production and maintenance employees of Pull­
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, 
Alabama, including watchmen and plant protection em­
ployees, but excluding superintendents, foremen, leaders, 
clerical employees, and employees in group 1 and 2 above, 
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec­
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of 
the National Labor Relations Act.

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the 

National Labor Relations Board by Section 9(c) of the 
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant 
to Article III, Sections 8 and 9, of National Labor Rela­
tions Board Rules and Regulations— Series 2, as 
amended,

I t  is  h e r e b y  c e r t if ie d  that International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 287, has been designated 
and selected by a majority of all electrical employees in 
the maintenance department, and powerhouse and sub­
station operators, of Pullman-Standard Car Manufactur­
ing Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen, 
leaders, and clerical employees, as their representative 
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pur­
suant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations 
Act, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
Local No. 287, is the exclusive representative of all such 
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with 
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and 
other conditions of employment.

I t  is  h e r e b y  c e r tifie d  that International Association 
of Machinists, Local No. 359, has been designated and



166

selected by a majority of all machinists, apprentices and 
helpers, employees in tool and die shop classified as die 
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, 
handymen, and cranemen, millwrights, production and 
maintenance welders, employees in wheel, axle, and truck 
shop, except crane hookers, and employees in air-brake 
department, of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing 
Company, Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen, 
leaders, and clerical employees, as their representative 
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursu­
ant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, 
International Association of Machinists, Local No. 359, 
is the exclusive representative of all such employees for 
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates 
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions 
of employment.

I t  is  h e r e b y  c e r t if ie d  that Steel Workers Organiz­
ing Committee, Local No. 1466, has been designated and 
selected by a majority of all production and maintenance 
employees of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Com­
pany, Bessemer, Alabama, including watchmen and plant 
protection employees, but excluding superintendents, fore­
men, leaders, clerical employees, and employees enumer­
ated above in the last two preceding paragraphs, as their 
representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, 
and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor 
Relations Act, Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 
Local No. 1466, is the exclusive representative of all such 
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with 
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and 
other conditions of employment.

M r . G era rd  D. R e il l y  took no part in the considera­
tion of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification 
of Representatives.



167

P L A I N T I F F S ’ E X H I B I T  17 

AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made anc! entered Into this 7th 

day of April, 1942, between Pullman-Standard Car Man­
ufacturing Company, hereinafter referred to as the 
“ Company” , for its plant located in the City of Bessemer, 
State of Alabama, and the International Association 
of Machinists, Lodge No. 359, affiliated with the Amer­
ican Federation of Labor, hereinafter referred to as the 
“Association” , as the exclusive representative and bar­
gaining agent of all employees of the Company as de­
fined and set forth in the second paragraph of the 
National Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, certifi­
cation, Case No. R-2952, dated November 19, 1941, as 
supplemented or clarified by letter of the respective unions 
to the Company dated December 19, 1941:

*  *  *  *

11. SENIORITY. Seniority of employees covered by 
this Agreement shall be confined to the department em­
ployed in each of the following departments:

Tool and Die Shop 
Wheel and Axle Shop 
Air-Brake Department 
Welders 
Millwrights.

Seniority starts from the day of employment. When 
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall 
be reduced.

Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini­
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term 
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con­
tributory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan 
for hourly and piece-work employees as amended July 14, 
1941.



168

[Attachment to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17]

Notice will be given to the men affected before reduc­
tion is made, five days in advance, unless conditions 
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be 
furnished the Shop Committee.

The last man employed shall he the first man laid 
off, except that due to nature of the work on production 
tracks the present practice in the welders and air-brake 
departments will continue, in that the men affected will 
take lay off without regard to seniority, provided, how­
ever, that in case of permanent lay-off, seniority will 
govern.

In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will be 
given preference of re-employment, if available within 
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former 
positions if practicable.

A copy of the seniority list will be made available 
at least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice 
posted that copy is available in the employment office 
to the employees listed.

New employees are on probation for three months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged 
as exclusively determined by the Company.

* * * *



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the As­
sociation have each caused these presents to be executed 
in their respective names by their proper officers there­
unto duly authorized.

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  C a r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  
C o m p a n y  (B e ss e m e r  P l a n t )

By W. C. Sleeman, Works Manager.

I n t e r n a t io n a l  A sso c ia t io n  of  
M a c h in is t s , L odge 359,

By H. A. Schrader, J. H. Howard, 
Grand Lodge Representatives.
A. H. Raines,
Committeeman, Lodge 359.

169



[Attachment to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17]
Birmingham, Alabama 
December 19, 1941.

Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, 
Birmingham, Alabama.

Gentlemen:
You are familiar with the fact that the classification 

of employees set out in the Board’s Decision and Direc­
tion of Elections, dated September 12 and November 19, 
1941, is in some respects difficult of interpretation and 
in minor respects inadvertent in the classification of 
employees as has been recognized both by the Company 
and by the respective bargaining agencies. The matter 
having reached the Board, suggestion has been received 
that the parties interested agree among themselves upon 
a correction of the matter. Conference was accordingly 
held on December 18, at the request of the Board, re­
sulting in the following agreement between representa­
tives of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee and 
the International Association of Machinists, as to the 
matter:

The following classifications are the classifications to 
be considered as included in paragraph 2, page 6, group 
2, of the Board’s Decision and Order: All machinists, 
machinists apprentices, machinists helpers; employees in 
tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera­
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handy-men and 
cranemen, but excluding laborers and hook-ons; employees 
classified as millwrights, production and maintenance 
burners, welders, tackers, burners and welder helpers; 
employees in the wheel and axle department except crane 
hookers, wheel rollers and laborers; air brake production 
employees classified as pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers, 
and air brake testers; employees in steel erection de­
partment classified as toolroom men and toolroom helpers 
of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company,

170



171

Bessemer, Alabama, excluding foremen, leaders and cler­
ical employees. Employees of the truck shop are prop­
erly included in group 3.

We accordingly request that the company acquiesce in 
the above agreement.

Yours very truly,

S t e e l w o r k e r s  Or g a n iz in g  
C o m m it t e e ,

By /&/ W. H. Crawford,
Field Representative.

I n t e r n a t io n a l  A sso c ia t io n  
op  M a c h in is t s ,
L odge 359,

By / s /  J. D. Baumgardner,
Business Representative.

ACCEPTED: as noted below.

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  
Ca r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  
Co m p a n y  
(B e sse m e r  P l a n t )

By /s /  W. C. Sleeman,
Its Manager of Works

NOTE: Assuming that the foregoing is satisfactory 
to the Board, and subject to Board orders.



172

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 18

AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 
June 13, 1944 between Pullman-Standard Car Manufac­
turing Company, hereinafter referred to as the “ Com­
pany” , for its plant located in the City of Bessmer, State 
of Alabama, and the International Association of Ma­
chinists, Lodge No. 359, affiliated with the American 
Federation of Labor, hereinafter referred to as the “ As­
sociation” , as the exclusive representative and bargain­
ing agent of all employees of the Company as defined 
and set forth in the second paragraph of the National 
Labor Relations Board, Tenth Region, certification, case 
No. R-2952, dated November 19, 1941, as supplemented 
or clarified by letter of the respective unions to the 
Company dated December 19, 1941:

* * * *

11. SENIORITY.
Seniority of employees covered by this agreement shall 

be confined to the department employed in each of the 
following departments :

Tool and Die Shop 
Wheel and Axle Shop 
Air-Brake Department 
Welders 
Millwrights.

Seniority starts from the day of employment. When 
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall 
be reduced.

Nothing herein shall affect the application or definition 
of the term “ length of service” or a similar term as 
contained in the Company’s group insurance, contribu­
tory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan for



173

hourly and piece-work employees as amended July 14, 
1941 and extended to cover the year 1944.

Notice will be given to the men affected before reduc­
tion is made, five days in advance, unless conditions 
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be 
furnished the Shop Committee.

The last man employed shall be the first laid off, 
except that due to nature of the work on production 
tracks the present practice in the welders and air-brake 
departments will continue, in that the men affected will 
take lay off without regard to seniority, provided, how­
ever, that in case of permanent lay-off seniority will 
govern.

In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will 
be given preference of re-employment, if available within 
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former 
positions if practicable.

A copy of the seniority list will be made available at 
least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice 
posted that copy is available in the employment office to 
the employees listed.

New employees are on probation for three months, 
during which time they may be laid off or dischai ged 
as exclusively determined by the Company.



174

SUPPLEMENT
[Attached to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Case No. 10-R-1212
In the matter o f :

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  C a r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  C o m p a n y , 
B e s s e m e r , A l a b a m a  P l a n t

a n d

U n it e d  S t e e l w o r k e r s  of  A m e r ic a  CIO

It is hereby agreed by and between United Steelwork­
ers of America, Local No. 1466, by R. M. Poarch and 
Dan R. Houston, and International Association of Ma­
chinists, Lodge No. 359, by J. C. McGlon and J. D. Bum- 
gardner as follows:

1. All machinists, machinist apprentices, machinist 
helpers; employees in tool and die shop classified as die 
men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, 
handy-men and crane men, but excluding laborers and 
hook-ons; also all millwrights employed by Pullman- 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer, Ala­
bama; excluding all foremen, leaders and clerical em­
ployees, constitute an appropriate unit within the mean­
ing of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations 
Act. It is further agreed that the International Associa­
tion of Machinists represents the employees in such unit 
and that it shall be recognized as exclusive bargaining 
representative of the employees in such unit by the Pull­
man-Standard Car Manufacturing Company.

2. It is agreed that all employees classified as produc­
tion and maintenance burners, welders, tackers, burner



175

and welder helpers; employees in the wheel and axle de­
partment; airbrake production employees classified as 
pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers and airbrake testers; em­
ployees in erection department classified as toolroom men 
and toolroom helpers, excluding foremen, leaders and 
clerical employees shall be added to or included in the 
appropriate unit represented at the present time by the 
United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 1466. It is 
agreed that United Steelworkers of America represents 
the employees in such unit as thus enlarged and that 
the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company will 
recognize the United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 
1466, as the exclusive bargaining representative of such 
employees.

This June 14, 1944.

I n t e r n a t io n a l  A sso c ia t io n  
o f  M a c h in is t s

By /s /  J. D. Baumgardner 
By / s /  J. C. McGlon

U n it e d  S t e e l w o r k e r s  of 
A m e r ic a  CIO 
L o c a l  N o . 1466

By /s /  R. M. Poarch 
By /&/ Dan R. Houston

Witnessed by :
/ s /  Paul L. Kuelthan,

Regional Atty., N. L. R. B.

Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company has 
taken no position in the matter of selection of a bargain­
ing representative by its employees and therefore does



176

not assume responsibility for the above and foregoing 
agreement between the respective unions heretofore certi­
fied by the National Labor Relations Board but being of 
the opinion that present controversy as to bargaining 
units is not in aid of harmonious operation of the Besse­
mer plant hereby acquiesces in the foregoing agreement 
and agrees for the duration of its existing contracts with 
the respective unions to recognize them, respectively, as 
exclusive bargaining agents for the bargaining units so 
defined, subject to any valid order or directive by public 
authority or requirement of law to the contrary.

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  
Ca r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  
Co m p a n y

By / s /  W. C. Sleeman.
6-14-44



177

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 19 

MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT

It is agreed this 6th day of October, 1944, between 
the International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 
359, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 
and the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, 
Bessemer, Alabama Plant, to amend Section 8 “Vaca­
tions” ; Section 10 “ Reporting time” ; Section 11 “ Sen­
iority; and add Section 11-A; Section 11-B; and Section 
1 1 -C : * * * *

SECTION 11. SENIORITY.
Seniority of employees covered by this agreement shall 

be confined to the department employed in each of the 
following departments:

Tool and Die Shop,
Millwrights,

and confined within their respective classification as fol­
lows; machinists, apprentices, die men, machine opera­
tors, toolroom men, helpers and handy men, cranemen, 
and millwrights.

Seniority starts from the day of employment. When 
it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force shall 
be reduced.

Notice shall be given to the men affected before re­
duction is made, five days in advance, unless conditions 
beyond the company’s control prevent, and lists will be 
furnished the Shop Committee.

The last man employed shall be the first man laid off.



178

In the restoration of forces, senior laid off men will 
be given preference of re-employment, if available within 
a reasonable time, and shall be returned to their former 
positions if practicable. ^

A copy of the seniority list will be made available at 
least twice a year to the Shop Committee and notice 
posted that copy is available in the employment office 
to the employees listed.

New employees are on probation for three months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged as 
exclusively determined by the Company.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper 
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been 
laid off the employee does not return to work within 
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord­
ing to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each 
employee to advise the Company in writing of any 
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years 
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration of 
leave of absence.

Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service 
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of 
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of 
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall 
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for 
the purpose of placing his name on the department list. 
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be 
placed on the department seniority list as of the date 
of employment in their respective classifications. Sen­
iority lists will be made up as soon after October 1, 
1944 as possible and posted in each department. Unless 
a written protest is made to the employment office with­
in thirty (30) days after posting by men in active serv­
ice of the Company or if not in active service, within 
30 days after return to active service, length of service



179

and dates thereon shall not be changed and the list shall 
be considered approved and binding. There is to be no 
penalty in applying seniority before or during the thirty 
(30) day period the list is subject to approval of em­
ployees.

When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of work­
man, he shall exercise his departmental seniority as 
shown on the departmental seniority list.

Any employee other than a temporary employee who 
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by 
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not retain his 
seniority earned, but his seniority shall be accumulated 
during his entire period of such active service, for the 
purpose of seniority only; i.e., his position on the sen­
iority list in accordance with provisions of the Federal 
law.

Any such employee who shall make application for re­
employment within sixty days after having been relieved 
from such service shall be restored to his former posi­
tion or one of like seniority, status and pay provided 
that he is in possession of a certificate of honorable 
discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medical 
examination customarily given to all applicants for em­
ployment and provided that the circumstances of the 
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible 
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.

*  *  *  *



1 8 0

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 33 

AGREEMENT

This agreement, dated April 7, 1942 between Pullman- 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Bessemer Plant 
(hereinafter referred to as the “ Company” ), and Steel 
Workers Organizing Committee, Local No. 1466, or its 
successor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Union” ) :

SECTION 1.
The bargaining unit covered by this agreement, by 

which the Union is recognized as the exclusive collec­
tive bargaining agent, subject to any change required 
by law, shall be as per the third paragraph of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Board certification, dated No­
vember 19, 1941 as supplemented or clarified by letter 
of the respective unions to the Company dated December 
19, 1941. * * * *

SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol­

lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors 
“b” , “ c” , and “ d” are relatively equal, length of con­
tinuous service shall govern:

a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun­
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the em­
ployee does not return to work within ten (10) days 
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com­
pany employment records; (d) lay-off of one or more 
years’ duration.



1 8 1

Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini­
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term 
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con­
tributory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan 
for hourly and piece work employees as amended July 
14, 1941.

New employees are on probation for three months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged 
as exclusively determined by the Company.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men 
are finishing assigned work requiring two weeks, or less, 
to complete.

The Company reserves the right in case of shutdown 
to retain such employees as will best fit the Company’s 
needs. Under such conditions there will be no restric­
tions as to the kind of work performed by leaders, fore­
men or force retained.

* * * *



1 8 2

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 34

AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 6, 1944, between 

Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse­
mer, Alabama Plant (hereinafter referred to as the 
“ Company” ), and United Steelworkers of America in be­
half of Local No. 1466, or its successor (hereinafter re­
ferred to as the “Union” .)

*  *  *

SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol­

lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors 
“b” , “ e” , and “d” are relatively equal, length of con­
tinuous service shall govern:

a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper 
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been 
laid off the employee does not return to work within 
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord­
ing to the Company employment records; (d) lay-off of 
one or more years’ duration.

Nothing herein shall affect the application or definition 
of the term “ length of service” or a similar term as 
contained in the Company’s group insurance, contribu­
tory retirement income, pension, and vacation plan for 
hourly and piece work employees as amended July 14, 
1941 and extended to cover the year 1944.

New employees are on probation for three months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged 
as exclusively determined by the Company.



183

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men 
are finishing assigned work requiring two weeks, or less, 
to complete.

The Company reserves the right in case of shut-down 
to retain such employees as will best fit the Company’s 
needs. Under such conditions there will be no restric­
tions as to the kind of work performed by leaders, fore­
men or force retained, but this provision is not applicable 
to production work continuing one week or more.

Any employee other than a temporary employee who 
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by 
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not only re­
tain his seniority earned, but his seniority shall be ac­
cumulated during the entire period of such active service. 
Any such employee who shall make application for re­
employment within forty (40) days after having been 
relieved from such service shall be restored, to his former 
position or one of like seniority, status and pay pro­
vided that he is in possession of a certificate of honor­
able discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medi­
cal examination customarily given to all applicants for 
employment and provided that the circumstances of the 
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible 
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.

*  *  *  *



184

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 35 

MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT

It is agreed this 30th day of September, 1944, be­
tween the United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 
1466, and the Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing 
Company, Bessemer, Alabama, plant to amend Section 
6, “Vacations” and Article 7, “ Seniority” , 7-A and “ Re­
porting Time” Section 7-B, also 7-C “Leave of Absence” , 
as follows:

*  *  *  *

SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol­

lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors 
shall be considered, and where “ factors “b” and “ c” are 
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall govern:

A— Continuous service.
B— Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper 
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been 
laid off the employee does not return to work within ten 
(10) days after notice is sent to the address according 
to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each 
employee to advise the Company in writing of any 
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years 
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration 
of leave of absence.

Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service 
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of 
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of 
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall



185

be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for 
the purpose of placing his name on the department list. 
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be 
placed on the department seniority list as of the date 
of employment in their respective departments. Seniority 
lists will be made up as soon after October 1, 1944 as 
possible and posted in each department. Unless a written 
protest is made to the employment office within thirty 
(30) days after posting by men in active service of the 
Company or if not in active service, within 30 days after 
return to active service, length of service and dates 
thereon shall not be changed and the list shall be con­
sidered approved and binding. There is to be no penalty 
in applying seniority before or during the thirty (30) 
day periods the list is subject to approval of employees.

New employees are on probation for three (3) months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged 
as exclusively determined by the Company, provided this 
shall not be used because of membership in the Union. 
After the three (3) months probationary period has 
expired they shall cease to be probationary employees 
and shall be entered on the seniority list of the de­
partment in which they are working at the time the 
probation period expires and shall rank for seniority 
from the date they entered said department. There shall 
be no seniority among probationary employees. Depart­
mental seniority will prevail for all employees other than 
probationary employees.

When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of work­
man, he shall exercise his departmental seniority as 
shown on the departmental seniority list.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department, nor exercise seniority in cases where men 
are finishing assigned work requiring two calendar weeks, 
or less, to complete except as hereinafter provided. When 
an employee because of his exceptional ability is trans­



1 8 6

ferred from one department to another by the manage­
ment, he shall retain and continue to accumulate sen­
iority in the department from which he was transferred 
and his name shall also be entered upon the seniority 
list of his new department, as of the date of his enter­
ing the new department. No employee so transferred 
shall hold seniority in more than two (2) departments; 
i.e., his original department and the department in which 
he is now working.

An employee who is transferred from one department 
to another for any reason whatever except on orders 
from the Management shall relinquish seniority in the 
department from which he is transferred and shall start 
as a new employee in the department to which he is 
transferred and his name shall be entered on the new 
department seniority list as of the first day worked in 
the new department. An employee so transferred must 
make written request.

In the event of a reduction in forces of more than 
two calendar weeks employees who are laid off but who 
have satisfactorily completed their probationary periods 
and whose names appear on their respective depart­
mental seniority lists will be allowed to displace proba­
tionary employees in other departments providing the 
laid off employee has the required qualifications and 
ability to perform the work. But such laid off em­
ployee’s name shall not appear on his new or temporary 
departmental seniority lists unless he requests a trans­
fer in which case his name will appear as of the date 
entered this new or temporary department, and in such 
case he shall automatically relinquish his seniority in 
his former department.

In case of shutdown the Company will retain such 
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs and under 
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the 
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen, or force



187

retained, but this provision is not applicable to produc­
tion work continuing one week or more.

Employees already assigned to work on an order shall 
not exercise seniority on new or other orders except 
that if an employee is not given work on a new order 
within two calendar weeks after the completion of the 
previous order on which he worked, then he shall be 
authorized to exercise departmental seniority in getting 
a like occupation on any going order requiring two cal­
endar weeks or more to complete.

Any employee other than a temporary employee who 
shall enter the Armed Forces of the United States by 
conscription or voluntary enlistment shall not only re­
tain his seniority earned, but his seniority shall be ac­
cumulated during his entire period of such active serv­
ice, for the purpose of seniority only; i.e., his position 
on the seniority list in accordance with provisions of the 
Federal law.

Any such employee who shall make application for 
re-employment within sixty days after having been re­
lieved from such service shall be restored to his former 
position or one of like seniority, status and pay provided 
that he is in possession of a certificate of honorable dis­
charge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medical ex­
amination customarily given to all applicants for employ­
ment and provided that the circumstances of the Com­
pany have not so changed as to make it impossible or 
unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.

* *• * *



188

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 38 

AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, dated June 6, 1947, between 
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, Besse­
mer, Alabama Plant (hereinafter referred to as the 
“ Company” ), and United Steelworkers of America in 
behalf of Local No. 1466, or its successor (hereinafter 
referred to as the “Union” ) .

* * * *

SECTION 7. SENIORITY.
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol­

lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors 
“ B” and “ C” are relatively equal, length of continuous 
service shall govern:

A— Continuous Service.
B-—Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.

Senioi'ity shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper 
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been 
laid off the employee does not return to work within 
ten (10) days after notice is sent to the address accord­
ing to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each 
employee to advise the Company in writing of any 
change of address) ; (d) lay-off of one or more years 
duration; (e) failure to return to work at expiration of 
leave of absence.

Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service 
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of 
May 1, 1936 and shown on the Company’s records as of 
September 30, 1944 and such accumulated service shall 
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for 
the purpose of placing his name on the department list. 
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be



189

pxaced on the department seniority list as of the date of 
employment in their respective departments. Seniority 
lists will be made up as of June 1 and posted in each 
department. Unless a written protest is made to the 
employment office within thirty (30) days after posting 
by men in active service of the Company or if not in 
active service, within 30 days after return to active 
service, length of service and dates thereon shall not 
be changed and the list shall be considered approved and 
binding. There is to be no penalty in applying seniority 
before or during the thirty (30) day period the list is 
subject to approval of employees.

New employees are on probation for three (3) months, 
during which time they may be laid off or discharged 
as exclusively determined by the Company, provided this 
shall not be used because of membership in the Union. 
After the three (3) months probationary period has ex­
pired they shall cease to be probationary employees and 
shall be entered on the occupational seniority list of the 
department in which they are working at the time the 
probation period expires and shall rank for occupational 
seniority from the date they entered said department. 
There shall be no seniority among probationary em­
ployees.

Occupational seniority within a department will pre­
vail for all employees other than probationary employees.

When a supervisor is reduced in rank to that of a 
workman, he shall exercise his seniority as shown on the 
seniority list.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
occupation or department, nor exercise seniority in cases 
where men are finishing assigned work requiring two 
calendar weeks, or less, to complete except as herein­
after provided.

When an employee because of his exceptional ability 
is transferred by the management, he shall retain and



190

continue to accumulate seniority in the occupation from 
which he was transferred and his name shall also be 
entered upon the seniority list of his new department 
as of the date of his entering the new department. No 
employee so transferred shall hold seniority in more than 
two (2) occupations; i.e., his original occupation and the 
occupation in which he is now working.

An employee who is transferred from one occupation 
in a department to the same or other occupation in the 
same department or another department for any reason 
whatever except on orders from the Management shall 
relinquish seniority in the occupation from which he is 
transferred and shall start as a new employee in the 
occupation to which he is transferred and his name shall 
be entered on the new occupational seniority list as of 
the first day worked in the new occupation or depart­
ment. An employee so transferred must make written 
request.

In the event of a reduction in forces of more than two 
calendar weeks employees who are laid off but who have 
satisfactorily completed their probationary periods and 
whose names appear on their respective seniority lists 
will be allowed to displace probationary employees in 
other occupations providing the laid off employee has 
the required qualifications and ability to perform the 
work. But such laid off employee’s name shall not ap­
pear on his new or temporary occupation seniority list 
unless he requests a transfer in which case his name 
will appear as of the date entered this new or temporary 
occupation and in such case he shall automatically re­
linquish his seniority in his former occupation.

In case of shutdown the Company will retain such 
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs and under 
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the 
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen, or force



191

retained, but this provision is not applicable to produc­
tion work continuing one week or more.

Employees already assigned to work on an order shall 
not exercise seniority on new or other orders except that 
if an employee is not given work on a new order within 
two calendar weeks after the completion of the previous 
order on which he worked, then he shall be authorized 
to exercise seniority in getting a like occupation on any 
going order requiring two calendar weeks or more to 
complete.

Any employee other than a temporary employee who 
has entered the Armed Forces of the United States by 
conscription or voluntary enlistment in accordance with 
the provisions of Selective Service and Training Act of 
1940 as amended, shall not only retain his seniority 
earned, but his seniority shall be accumulated during 
his entire period of such active service, for the purpose 
of seniority only; i.e., his position on the seniority list 
in accordance with provisions of the Federal law.

Any such employee who shall make application for 
reemployment within ninety (90) days after having 
been relieved from such service shall be restored to his 
former position or one of like seniority, status and pay 
provided that he is in possession of a certificate of honor­
able discharge, that he satisfactorily shall pass the medi­
cal examination customarily given to all applicants for 
employment and provided that the circumstances of the 
Company have not so changed as to make it impossible 
or unreasonable that it agree to such reinstatement.

Nothing herein shall affect the application or defini­
tion of the term “ length of service” or a similar term 
as contained in the Company’s group insurance, con­
tributory retirement income and pension plan.

< ! • * * • *



192

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 41 

AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, dated August 26, 1954, be­
tween PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTUR­
ING COMPANY, Bessemer, Alabama Plant, (herein­
after referred to as the “ Company” ) and the UNITED 
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter referred 
to as the “Union” ) .

*  *  *  *

SECTION 12. SENIORITY
In all cases of increase or decrease of forces, the fol­

lowing factors shall be considered, and where factors 
“ B” and “ C” are relatively equal, length of continuous 
service shall govern:

A— Continuous Service.
B— Ability to perform the work.
C— Physical fitness.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge for proper 
cause; (b) voluntary quitting; (c) after having been 
laid off the employee does not return to work within ten 
(10) days after notice is sent to the address according 
to the Company records (it is the sole duty of each 
employee to advise the Company in writing of any change 
of address) ; (d) absence due to layoff or a disability 
other than a comparable disability, in excess of two (2) 
years for those employees with seniority up to ten (10) 
years at the commencement of such layoff, and absence 
due to layoff or a disability, other than compensable 
disability, in excess of three (3) years for those em­
ployees with ten (10) or more years of seniority at the 
commencement of such layoff; (e) absence for a period 
exceeding that for which statutory compensation was 
payable due to an injury received in the course of em­



193

ployment; (f) failure to return to work at expiration 
of leave of absence.

Seniority lists shall be compiled according to service 
as defined in the Company’s Rules and Regulations of 
May 1, 1936, and shown on the Company’s records as of 
September 30, 1944, and such accumulated service shall 
be credited to the employee’s departmental seniority for 
the purpose of placing his name on the department list. 
Employees employed after September 30, 1944 shall be 
placed on the department seniority list as of the date of 
employment in their respective departments. Seniority 
lists will be made up as of June 1 and posted in each 
department. Unless a written protest is made to the 
Employment Office within thirty (30) days after posting 
by men in active service of the Company or if not in 
active service, within thirty (30) days after return to 
active service, length of service and dates thereon shall 
not be changed and the list shall be considered approved 
and binding. There is to be no penalty in applying sen­
iority before or during the thirty (30) day period the 
list is subject to approval of employees.

New employees are on probation for forty-five (45) 
days of work, during which time they may be laid off 
or discharged as exclusively determined by the Company, 
provided this shall not be used because of membership 
in the Union. However, the employment of a probation­
ary employee shall not be terminated while he is absent 
from work due to personal illness or a non-occupational 
injury, provided that (1) such absence does not exceed 
six (6) months in the aggregate during his probationary 
period, and (2) he furnishes proof to the Company that 
such absence was due to personal illness or non-occupa­
tional injury. After the forty-five (45) days of work 
probationary period has expired, they shall cease to be 
probationary employees and shall be entered on the de­
partmental seniority list of the department in which



194

they are working at the time the probation period ex­
pires and shall rank for departmental seniority from 
the date they entered said department. There shall be 
no seniority among probationary employees.

Departmental seniority will prevail for all employees 
other than probationary employees.

Employees promoted to supervisory positions shall re­
tain and continue to accumulate seniority and when re­
duced in rank to that of a workman, they shall exercise 
their departmental seniority as shown on the seniority 
list.

An employee hereafter transferred to a position out­
side of the bargaining unit, other than a position of 
supervisor over employees in the bargaining unit, shall 
lose his seniority in the bargaining unit at the time of 
such transfer.

An employee who is transferred from one department 
to another department for any reason whatsoever except 
on orders from the management shall relinquish seniority 
in the department from which he is transferred and shall 
start as a new employee in the department to which he 
is transferred and his name shall be entered on the new 
department seniority list as of the first day worked in 
the new department. An employee so transferred must 
make written request.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department, except as provided in the following five 
paragraphs:

When an employee because of his exceptional 
ability is transferred by the management, he shall 
retain and continue to accumulate seniority in the 
department from which he was transferred and his 
name shall also be entered upon the seniority list of 
his new department as of the date of his entering 
the new department. No employee so transferred



195

shall hold seniority in more than two (2) depart­
ments; i.e., his original department and the depart­
ment in which he is now working. An employee 
transferred at the request of management shall be 
returned by management within a period of one (1) 
year from date of transfer to his original depart­
ment from which transferred. When the job to 
which management transferred the employee is com­
pleted, the employee shall be returned to his original 
department and shall lose any accumulated seniority 
in the department to which he was transferred im­
mediately upon his leaving such department. If, 
however, at the time of completion of the job on 
which he is working, there is no work available in 
his original department, he shall continue working 
in his new or temporary department until such time 
as his seniority in his original department warrants 
him a job. If the employee so transferred elects to 
remain in the new department, he shall relinquish 
seniority in the department from which he is trans­
ferred and shall start as a new employee in the 
department to which he is transferred and his name 
shall be entered on the new department seniority 
list as of the first day worked in the new depart­
ment. An employee so transferred must make writ­
ten request.

An employee laid off for lack of work in his de­
partment for a period that is expected to exceed 
five (5) working days shall be given preference in 
other departments before the Company hires new 
men, provided such employee has seniority and the 
ability to perform the work.

Laid off employees desiring to work in other de­
partments must present Drop Slips to the Employ­
ment Office, at which time they shall be presented 
with “ Request for Work” forms which they must



196

fill in and sign, duplicate to be retained by employee 
after being endorsed by the Employment Manager 
or his representative. Employees laid off must pre­
sent their Drop Slips to the Employment Office as 
soon as possible. They will waive any “plant” sen­
iority rights until they have done so.

An employee laid off because of lack of work in 
his department for a period that is expected to ex­
ceed five (5) working days and who has satisfac­
torily completed his probationary period and whose 
name appears on his department seniority list, will 
be allowed to displace probationary employees in 
other departments, provided the laid off employee 
has the qualifications and ability to perform the work 
equal to that of the probationary employee involved, 
and provided he informs the Employment Depart­
ment in writing of his desire at the time of layoff.

Any laid off employee given work in another de­
partment shall hold seniority in his new depart­
ment as of the date of entering that department 
and shall be notified to return to his original de­
partment according to his seniority. If the employee 
elects to remain in the department in which he is 
working and does remain therein, his seniority in 
that department shall date from the last day he 
entered it and his seniority in his former depart­
ment shall be terminated. If after such laid off 
employee is assigned to a job in another department 
management relieves him from performing the job 
because of his lack of ability, such employee shall 
lose any accumulated seniority in that department 
but shall retain his seniority in his former de­
partment.

Employees on the track or related departments (Truck 
Shop, Steel Construction, Welding, Steel Erection, Air 
Brake, Wood Erection and Paint-Shipping Track) al­



197

ready assigned to work on an order shall not exercise 
seniority on new or other orders except that if an em­
ployee is not given work on a new order within five (5) 
work days after the completion of the previous order on 
which he worked, then he shall be authorized to exer­
cise seniority in getting a like occupation on any going- 
order requiring five (5) working days or more to com­
plete. However, when it is known that the track on 
which he worked will not start before five (5) working 
days, the employee shall signify to his foreman his in­
tention to exercise his seniority on the going track or 
order at the time of completion of work on the order 
on which he is working, then he shall be placed on the 
going track or order not later than one day after com­
pletion of the order on which he worked.

Except in the case of a temporary layoff (not to ex­
ceed three (3) work days) employees shall be laid off 
on a departmental basis in accordance with their de­
partmental seniority. After the laid-off employee is sent 
his notice of recall, the foreman may fill the position 
with any employee available, regardless of seniority, 
until such time as the laid off employee returns and is 
ready to go to work.

In changing over tracks from one car order to an­
other, where it is necessary to realign highlines and 
change equipment in different positions of the track, 
such work is to be done by maintenance employees regu­
larly assigned to that work, such as pipefitters, mill- 
rights, electricians, welders, etc.

In the event of a reduction of more than five (5) 
work days in the work force in any department, the 
Grievance Committeeman (who must have at least two 
(2) years’ seniority in the plant), if there is any in that 
department, shall be retained if the reduction in work 
force in that department continues to the point at which 
he would otherwise be laid off, provided he is capable of



198

performing the work remaining in his department. If 
a Grievance Committeeman is working in a department 
to which he was transferred by management, this section 
shall apply only to the department from which he was 
transferred.

The Chairman of the Grievance Committee will be 
given a daily written report of hires, quits, discharges, 
recalls, layoffs, transfers, leaves of absence, and retire­
ments of employees in the bargaining unit on the second 
work day following same.

#  • *  #



199

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 42 

AGREEMENT
This Agreement dated this 27th day of August, 1956 

is between P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  Ca r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  
Co m p a n y , a Delaware Corporation, (hereinafter referred 
to as the “ Company” ) and U n it e d  S t e e l w o r k e r s  of 
A m e r ic a , an international labor organization, (herein­
after referred to as the “Union” ) .

*  *  *  *

S e c t io n  II.
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement relates only to the Company’s Besse­
mer, Butler, Pullman Car Works, Worcester, Hammond 
and Hammond Wheel plants.

The term “ employee” as used in this Agreement ap­
plies to those employees of the Company employed in or 
around said plants and with respect to each of said 
plants the term “ employee” shall be defined as follows:

Butler Plant—All maintenance and production em­
ployees of the Company employed in and about the Com­
pany’s plant located at Butler, Pennsylvania, including 
Railroad Switching Department, Leaders, Testers and 
Production Checkers; however, excluding Foremen, As­
sistant Foremen, Watchmen, Guards, Office Employees, 
Supervisors, Shop Clerical Employees, Expediters, Nurses, 
Safety Director and Assistants, and all monthly rated 
employees.

Bessemer Plant—All production and maintenance em­
ployees of the Company employed in and about the Com­
pany’s plant located at Bessemer, Alabama, including 
watchmen and plant protection employees, but exclud­
ing superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen, leaders,



2 0 0

time clerks, clerical employees, office employees, any 
salaried employees doing no manual labor in the plant, 
salesmen, or any of the management and also excluding 
employees represented by the International Association 
of Machinists, which includes millwrights, and all Die 
and Tool employees except welders, laborers, and hookons.

Pullman Car Works Passenger Car Plant—All pro­
duction and maintenance employees of the Company em­
ployed in and about the Company’s Pullman Car Works, 
Passenger Car Plant, located at Chicago, Illinois, includ­
ing watchmen, production instructors and factory clerks 
of the Pullman Car Works, Passenger Car Plant, ex­
cluding executives, foremen, assistant foremen, leaders, 
bill-makers, roundsmen, rate clerks, price setters (time 
study men), chief clerks and salary roll employees in 
the factory, general office employees on the payroll of the 
manager, superintendent, employment, purchasing and 
stores, engineering, accounting, safety and dispensary, 
training department, stationary engineers, production 
and maintenance electricians, and metal polishers, buf­
fers, regularly assigned platers and helpers, and armed 
guards.

Worcester Plant—All production, maintenance and 
stores employees of the Company employed in and about 
the Company’s Worcester, Massachusetts plant, includ­
ing gang leaders, but excluding foremen, assistant fore­
men, leaders, time clerks, watchmen, any salaried em­
ployee doing no manual labor in the plant, clerical 
workers, office employees and salesmen. It is agreed 
that under no circumstances whatever are powerhouse 
employees to suspend performance of their assigned 
duties.

Hammond Works—All production and maintenance 
employees of the Company employed in and about the 
Hammond Works of the Company located at Hammond, 
Indiana, including inspectors, factory clerks, and leaders,



2 0 1

but excluding general office employees, foremen, assistant 
foremen, nurses, safety director and assistants, time 
study men and watchmen.

Hammond Car Wheel Plant—All production and main­
tenance employees of the Company employed in and about 
the Hammond Car Wheel Plant of the Company located 
at Hammond, Indiana, excluding clerical employees, su­
pervisory employees, leaders who are assistant foremen,
A. A.R. clerks and watchmen.

# * * *
Se c t io n  VI.

SENIORITY

A. Seniority Status of Employees
The parties recognize that promotion opportunity and 

job security in event of promotions, decreases of forces, 
and rehirings after layoffs should increase in proportion 
to length of continuous service, and that in the adminis­
tration of this Section the intent will be that wherever 
practicable full consideration shall be given continuous 
service in such cases.

In recognition, however, of the responsibility of Man­
agement for the efficient operation of the works, it is 
understood and agreed that in all cases o f :
1. Promotion (except promotions to positions excluded 

under the definition of “ employees” in Section II—  
S co pe  of  A g r e e m e n t ) the following factors as listed 
below shall be considered; however, only where factor 
“b” is relatively equal shall factor “a” length of con­
tinuous service be the determining factor:
a. Continuous service,
b. Ability to perform the work, which includes phy­
sical fitness.



2 0 2

2. Decrease in forces or rehirings after layoffs the fol­
lowing factors as listed below shall be considered, 
however, only where factor “b” is relatively equal 
shall factor “a” length of continuous service be the 
determining factor:
a. Continuous service,
b. Ability to perform the work, which includes 

physical fitness.
3. In the case of decrease of forces and subsequent in­

crease of forces, the senior employee who has pre­
viously demonstrated his “ ability to perform the 
work” shall not be questioned on relative ability pro­
vided he otherwise qualifies on “physical fitness.”

B. Establishment of Plant Seniority Rules.
To the end of encouraging application of the principle 

that employment security should increase with continu­
ous service, consistent with Subsection A above, in con­
nection with promotions, layoffs and rehiring after lay­
offs, the appropriate representatives of the Company and 
the Union at each plant, shall if request is made of either 
party, review the existing local seniority agreement. The 
representative duly designated by the International Union 
for this purpose and the Company Industrial Relations 
Executive (or his representative) shall be available to 
advise and consult with the plant representatives of the 
parties. Any revised agreements on which the local plant 
representatives of the parties may agree shall be placed 
in effect as soon as possible.

The existing seniority unit or units for application of 
the seniority factors, including service dates within these 
units, covered by existing local agreements, shall remain 
in effect unless or until modified by local written agree­
ment signed by Management and the local union nego­
tiating committee. Hereafter local seniority agreements



203

shall be signed by the local union committee, who are to 
post such agreements in the plant.

C. Calculation of Continuous Service
Continuous service shall be calculated for the purpose 

of establishing seniority lists under this contract in ac­
cordance with the rule or rules set forth in individual 
plan agreements as were in effect on August 31, 1956.

There shall be no deduction for any time lost which 
does not constitute a break in continuous service.

Continuous service shall be broken by:

a. Quit.
b. Discharge.
c. Failure to return to work within five (5) days after 

receipt of notification by registered or certified letter 
or telegram to his address last furnished the Com­
pany (it being the sole duty of the individual em­
ployee to inform the Company of changes of ad­
dress) .

d. Absence due to layoff or a disability other than a 
compensable disability, in excess of two (2) years for 
those employees with seniority up to ten (10) years 
at the commencement of such absence; and, absence 
due to layoff or a disability, other than a compensa­
ble disability in excess of three (3) years for those 
employees with ten (10) or more years of seniority 
at the commencement of such absence.

e. Failure to return to work at the expiration of leave 
of absence,

D. Probationary Employees
New employees of the Company which includes those 

hired after a loss of seniority, shall be considered proba­



204

tionary employees for the first thirty (30) days they 
work. If laid off during this probationary period due to 
lack of work, they shall be the first to be returned to 
work after all qualified men are working, provided that 
at the time of layoff they notify the Employment Office. 
When such new employees are laid off they must present 
Drop Slips to the Employment Office, at which time they 
shall be presented with “ Request for Work” forms which 
they must fill in and sign. The Company shall have ex­
clusive right to lay off or discharge for cause any such 
probationary employee at any time, provided this provi­
sion shall not be used for purposes of discrimination 
against the Union. Probationary employees may file and 
process grievances under this Agreement. The employ­
ment of a probationary employee shall not be terminated 
while he is absent from work due to personal illness or 
a non-occupational injury, provided that (1) such absence 
does not exceed six (6) months in the aggregate during 
his probationary period, and (2) he furnishes proof to 
the Company that such absence was due to personal ill­
ness or a non-occupational injury. The employment of a 
probationary employee shall be terminated in the event 
he is laid off due to a lack of work for a period in excess 
of six (6) months during his probationary period. Names 
of such probationary employees after their 30th day 
worked shall be placed on the seniority list as of the last 
date of hire.
E. Leaves of Absence

Employees, upon written application setting forth good 
cause, may be granted a written leave of absence by the 
Company without pay and without loss of seniority, 
except as provided in Section X V — V a c a t io n s , Subsec­
tion A.

Leaves of absence for the purpose of accepting posi­
tions with the International or Local Unions shall be 
available to a reasonable number of employees. Ade­



205

quate notice of intent to apply for leave shall be afforded 
local plant Management to enable proper provision to be 
made to fill the job to be vacated.

Leaves of absence shall be for a period of not in excess 
of one year and may be renewed for a further period of 
one year. Continuous service shall not be broken by the 
leave of absence but will continue to accrue.

F. Seniority Lists
The Company shall make available to the Local Union 

concerned lists showing the relative continuous service 
of each employee in each seniority unit. Such lists shall 
be revised by the Company from time to time, as nec­
essary, but at least every six months, to keep them rea­
sonably up-to-date. The seniority rights of individual 
employees shall in no way be prejudicd by errors, inac­
curacies, or omissions in such lists.

Employees promoted to supervisory positions shall re­
tain and continue to accumulate seniority and when 
reduced in rank to that of a workman, they shall exer­
cise their departmental seniority as shown on the senior­
ity list.

An employee hereafter transferred to a position out­
side of the bargaining unit, other than a position of 
supervisor over employees in the bargaining unit, shall 
lose his seniority in the bargaining unit at the time of 
such transfer.

The Chairman of the Grievance Committee will be 
given a daily written report of hires, quits, discharges, 
recalls, layoffs, transfers, leaves of absence, and retire­
ments of employees in the bargaining unit on the second 
work day following same.



206

PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENTS
OF

PULLMAN’S BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA PLANT 

1965

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 50

Department Whites Blacks

Shear 132 0
Press 101 0
Punch 146 0
Forge 56 0
Construction 171 0
Steel Erection 330 5
Welding 661 0
Paint & Equipment 352 9
Shipping 12 0
Steel Stores 73 1
Bolt & Rivet 5 0
Tool Room 4 0
Die & Tool 89 0
Maintenance (actually Millwright) 36 0
Electrical & Cranes 123 0
Machine Repair 19 0
Truck, Wheel & Axle 56 0
Garage 9 0
Non-Skilled Pool (Hookons and Laborers 84 0
Carpenter Shop 14 0
Railroad 22 0
Powerhouse 10 0
Wood Erection
Wood Planning
Inspection 18 0
Pattern & Template 3 0
Storeroom 1 0
Bricklayers 4 0



207

Memorandum of the position taken by Mr. Howard of 
AF of L regarding various sections of proposed contract 
— 12/9/41.

Section 1. Agreement
AF of L contends agreement is to be between Company 

and the Association and not employees as represented 
by Association. They will accept the truck shop employ­
ees as referred to in Board Certification but say they 
do not want them.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 51

* * *  *



208

Bessemer— March 2,1943
United Steelworkers of America 
Meeting with Contract Committee:

A meeting was held with the contract committee at 
4:00 P.M. at the General office, with the following 
present:

For the Union:
B. F. Gage— Union representative 
R. F. Aldridge (w)
J. H. Smith (w)
J. I. Odom (w)
McKinley McCreary (c)
Perry L. Thompson (c)

For the Company:
W. C. Sleeman 
0. A. Wiltsie

*  *  *  *

One of the colored committeemen, McKinley McCreary, 
asked Mr. Sleeman if there were not a provision for a 
man drawing out of the Union on 15 days notice. * * * 

* * *

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 65

*



209

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING 
COMPANY

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 66—FIRST DOCUMENT

Inter-Department Correspondence

Subject: LABOR TROUBLE 
Please Refer To File C.I.O.

Bessemer, Alabama, 
January 10, 1944

MEMORANDUM:
Capt. Walter C. Smith, Chief Industrial Labor Rela­

tions Officer, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta, came to 
plant at approximately 3:30 today in response to Mr. 
Sleeman’s telephone conversation with Captain Smith 
(not Walter C.) of this morning.

* * * *
At approximately 7:00 P.M. Capt. Smith returned to 

Mr. Sleeman’s office and advised the men voted not to 
return to work and they would have another meeting 
Tuesday, January 11th, at which time they would vote 
to strike. Capt. Smith stated a number of the negroes 
wanted to return to work and several of them threatened 
to frighten Preacher McCreary, stating he was the one 
who was causing the men to strike. Capt. Smith also 
told Sleeman in his opinion McCreary was the one man 
who was the cause of the trouble. The conversation be­
tween Capt. Smith and Sleeman at approximately 7 :30 
P.M. was held in the presence of Capt. Smith, Sleeman 
and Mr. Ellithorpe. Capt. Smith also stated it was dif­
ficult for him to talk to these negroes, as they appeared to 
be of a class that would not understand the ordinary 
conversation.

W. C. Sleeman



2 1 0

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING 
COMPANY

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 66—SECOND DOCUMENT

Inter-Department Correspondence 

Subject: LABOR TROUBLE 

Please Refer To File C.I.O.
Bessemer, Alabama, 
January 10, 1944

MEMORANDUM:
For several days there has been sand house talk among 

the negroes that when we went to the Goverenment cars 
they intended to strike on account of the action taken 
by the Regional Labor Board in denying a wage increase 
and it also, in several cases, has come to our attention the 
company would not accept the Regional Board’s decision.

On Monday morning at around 7 :30 A.M., as Mr. Slee- 
man was driving into the plant he saw approximately 12 
colored going out of the gate. He stopped them and asked 
what was the matter. They stated they were going out. 
Sleeman asked them why and if they were quitting. They 
said they were not quitting, but were afraid to work. 
Sleeman asked them why and after considerable ques­
tioning, they stated they were afraid of someone throw­
ing bombs on their porch at night and there was a re­
luctance on their part to discuss the matter, other than to 
say they were afraid. Two of these men recognized were 
Franklyn from the track and Richard Gerrett from the 
track, both colored. On checking the roll, it was found 61 
colored had come into the plant and quit work and walked 
out. There was a number of colored who had quit, how­
ever and were sitting around the bath house doing nothing



2 1 1

when Mr. Green went around each bath house and told 
them they would either have to go to work or be given 
out cards. Those who went out were given out cards, 
some marked “ Refused to work” and some marked “ Don’t 
want to work.” A complete memorandum as to the 
number present and number working, etc., is shown on 
the attached exhibit.

Work in the shop was not stopped with the exception 
of actually building the cars on the track. In this depart­
ment, the white men and those who remained of the 
colored were used in further lining the track up for pro­
duction. The balance of the other departments continued 
to work. There were, however, some few colored in the 
other departments who did not work, but these were few 
in number. * * * *

W. C. Sleeman



2 1 2

LABOR UNION— CIO

MEMORANDUM TO FILE

Bessemer—January 14, 1944 
Meeting was held on Thursday, January 13, 1944.

Those present were:
Mr. V. C. Finch, United States Conciliation 
Mr. Mead, Alabama Department of Labor

Major Street, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta 
Captain Smith, 4th Transportation Zone, Atlanta 
Major Smith, 4th Service Command, Birmingham
Mr. B. F. Gage, U.S.W. of A.
Mr. R. M. Poarch, U.S.W. of A.
W.O. Bradshaw, Shop committeeman 
McKinley McCreary ( c ) , Shop committeeman 
Perry Thompson (c), Shop committeeman 
Gus Dickerson (c), Shop committeeman
Mr. W. C. Sleeman, representing the Company 
Mr. F. W. Green, representing the Company 
Mr. A. F. Smith, representing the Company 
Mr. J. E. Bolen, representing the Company 
Mr. James Davidson, representing the Company 
Mrs. Grimes, representing the Company

The meeting was opened by Mr. Sleeman who ex­
plained to those present that meeting had been requested 
by Mr. Finch for the purpose of handling some griev­
ances which the CIO representatives had brought up at 
the hall and which they claimed were the cause of the 
two-day strike. The conciliators were told that at the 
present time there were no unsettled grievances on the

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 67



213

manager’s desk, neither did Mr. Green, the plant super­
intendent, have any unsettled grievances on his desk. 
And also that, in so far as we knew, no grievance had 
been brought up that was not settled at the present time. 
Mr. Gage was requested to present the grievance and 
he advised that possibly the colored boys could explain 
their grievances better inasmuch as they were the ones 
affected.

McKinley McCreary (c) entered into a long statement 
in connection with the transferring of men from the Bomb 
Shop back to other departments, having particular 
point on Frank Zeigler who had worked also in the Bomb 
Shop and upon his having been laid off at the completion 
of work in the Bomb Shop was placed in the Yard De­
partment labor gang.

* * * *



214

Bessemer, Alabama 
October 24, 1944

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 69

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING REGARDING 
LABOR UNION C.I.O. CONTRACT 

AMENDMENT

Meeting held in Mr. Sleeman’s Bessemer Office. 

Present:

Messrs. W. C. Sleeman 
J. E. Bolen 
E. E. Perkins
H. G. Wesley
H. S. Thompson
A. F. Smith

SENIORITY
# * * *

2. Seniority, as it is now understood by the con­
tract, means the position of a man in the departmental 
seniority list for the purpose of hiring and laying off.

**



215

W. C. Sleeman
WCS/jc
cc: Messrs. D. L. Golden

W. C. Sleeman (Birmingham Office)
J. E. Bolen 
E. E. Perkins 
H. G. Wesley 
H. S. Thompson 
A. F. Smith



216

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 70 

LABOR UNIONS— C.I.O.
Bessemer, Ala., 
May 26, 1945

CONFIDENTIAL

MR. N. B. JOHNSON: (2 copies)
* * * *

(2) In negotiations the Union asked for the following:
More liberal vacation plan
60%^ minimum rate
Job evaluation study
Elimination of Negro differentials
Piece work pay when working on sample oar
Job inequality adjustment
Closed shop for those represented
Retroactive shift differential
Top seniority for union officials
Altered grievance procedure
Retroactive pay on adjustment of job inequalities 
Incentive bonus.

(3) It must be borne in mind that we are certain the 
Union would never sign any joint request to the War 
Labor Board to ask for the elimination of union main­
tenance or a new escape clause and if it had come to a 
point where the matter had to be again referred to the 
War Labor Board for directive, we would have found 
ourselves facing a new disposition of the above items, 
some of which at this particular time would have been 
difficult to dispose of, especially since there is now a 
very active movement on the part of the colored to push 
themselves to a point of doing the same job as the white 
man. This has been confirmed to me by the fact that 
representatives of the C.I.O. have stated to me that they 
are having trouble all over the district with their colored 
membership to the extent that in some of the plants



217

numbers of the colored have walked off the job, stating 
that they have been advised if they don’t get what they 
are after now, they never will get it and again am ad­
vised that the F.E.P.C. have representatives in the dis­
trict who are doing considerable work.
(4) We also know that in numerous meetings we have 
had recently the colored representation always inject 
negro differentials and that they should be permitted 
to have negro leaders over the negro man.
(5) Had we forced the issue of union maintenance, a 
fighting attitude upon the part of the union on several 
of the bad items above mentioned would have put this 
plant into such an upset condition and turmoil, little 
production or cooperation from anyone could be expected 
and the forestalling of these issues for another year by 
going along with the old contract as it was with the 
changes innumerated in our memorandum agreement 
gives us a lever to combat for another year the very 
things which might at the end of that time have an en­
tirely different angle.
(6) Notwithstanding all of the above, we did what we 
thought was in our best judgment, together with the ap­
proval of Forney Johnston from a legal standpoint, the 
best procedure to follow for Bessemer Plant. However, 
had we been apprised of the fact that regardless of the 
above existing conditions, the Management desired to 
bring union maintenance out on the table again, we would 
have followed that procedure, even if it meant shutting 
down the plant, which probably would have been the 
result.

W. C. S l e e m a n



218

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 7l

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  C o r r e sp o n d e n c e

Bessemer, Alabama, 
July 14, 1945

S u b j e c t : LABOR UNION— C.1.0.

P l e a s e  R e f e r  to  F i l e : Grievance Committee Meeting

MEMORANDUM of meeting held in Mr. Sleeman’s office 
at 4:30 P.M., July 11, 1945:
Present for Management: United States Arm y:

W. C. Sleeman Major H. N. Smith
J. E. Bolen Lt. Phil B. Armour
A. F. Smith

Representing C. I. 0 .:

R. M. Poarch, Representative
B. F. Gage, Representative 

* * * *
Clarence Martin )
J. M. Herring )
Hewitt Fields ) Committeemen
Allen Richardson )
E. B. Jackson )

(4) E. B. Jackson then stated that the differential be­
tween the rates for white employees and colored employ­
ees was too great on account of the skill of the colored 
employees.

* * * *
A. F. Smith



219

Birmingham, Ala. 
May 29, 1947

C.I.O.

MEMORANDUM:
*  *  *  *

(7) The picket line situation was quiet. Around noon 
the number of pickets was about 25, and about 75% of 
these colored. No violence has taken place since the 
trouble on the first day of the strike.
WCS/jd
cc: Mr. Bolen

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 74



2 2 0

Birmingham, Alabama 
June 4, 1947

C.I.O.

MEMORANDUM:

(1) At the request of Conciliator Pierce, Messrs. Farr, 
Pierce, Sleeman, Bolen, and Poarch, and in part of the 
meeting Mr. Reemer was present, sat in Mr. Sleeman’s 
office, as Mr. Pierce stated—to attempt to settle the 
strike or at least talk things over. The meeting was 
called at 10:30 A.M. and it lasted until 12:45 P.M.
(2) The Company stated its stand by saying that on pre­
vious meetings before the 15%^ was offered to the com­
mittee and Mr. Gage, it was with the understanding 
that they would accept and sign the contract but after 
the offer was made then several of the colored objected to 
it, stating that they wanted certain inequities corrected. 
In all meetings as well as the one held this morning it 
boiled down that these inequities did not mean one or 
two occupations but the majority of the colored occupa­
tions except for the day laborers. * * *

* * * *
WCS/jd 
ce: Mr. Bolen

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 75



2 2 1

Bessemer, Alabama 
April 27th, 1948

INSURANCE
* * * *

4. On Tuesday afternoon Messrs. Pierson, Bolen and my­
self met with the C.I.O. committee and introduced Mr. 
Pierson as a Prudential Insurance man who makes peri­
odical visits to the plant to survey our insurance condi­
tions, etc., etc. and took that method. We asked the 
committee members to express their opinions about our 
present insurance plan. The very first objection, and 
strongly so, was that our hospital and surgical plan was

inadequate to meet their requirements and the whites 
expressed they would be willing to pay more money for 
an improvement in the plan. The colored, however, were 
a little reluctant about a change in the premium but 
they finally stated they felt if a better plan could be 
offered for the surgical and hospitalization they probably 
would at least get 95% of those now participating to go 
to the extent of a $1.00 each. There was somewhat of a 
feeling among the colored that they would take this im­
provement even to the extent of having the Life Insur­
ance and Accidental Death somewhat reduced. They also 
expressed the opinion that the tie in of burial insurance 
might be beneficial and help sell the idea of increase 
and change to meet their suggested bettered hospital plan. 

* * * *

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 76

W. C. S l e e m a n



222
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 81

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  Co r r e sp o n d e n c e

Bessemer, Alabama 
August 10,1950

SUBJECT: CI.O.— Contract Negotiations 
Please Refer To File
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 10, 
1950 IN OFFICE OF FEDERAL MEDIATION AND 
CONCILIATION SERVICE IN BIRMINGHAM AT 
10:00 A.M.
Present for
Company: Present for Union:

W. C. Sleeman 
D. L. Golden 
J. E. Bolen 
F. W. Green 
A. F. Smith

R. E. Farr, District Director
Van D. Jones, Field Representative
Shewmake
J. M. Herring )
W. P. Vance )
John Hubbard ) Negotiating
Joe Brooks (c) ) Committee
Gus Dickerson (c) )
Perry Thompson (c) )

V. C. Finch, Federal Conciliator, presided over the 
meeting.

Mr. Sleeman than discussed the question of holding 
seniority in two departments, after Vance had stated 
that he knew he had less seniority than Quick on the 
Shipping Track but that he also had seniority in the 
Paint Department and that he could be retained on that 
account.

* * * *
A. F. Smith



223

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Bessemer, Alabama 
March 28, 1951

C. I. 0.

MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
* * * *

On the wage inequity program, believe Mr. Jones was 
somewhat surprised when we explained to him actually 
how our wage structure works and how some of the 
rates had been bounced around by the War Labor Board’s 
decisions, which were not only unsatisfactory to the Com­
pany but not satisfactory to the men and as a result 
further changes were made. Mr. Jones was not aware of 
this and he wanted more time to study their files. We 
are inclined to think that the committee as a whole, with 
the exception of the colored, are not so interested in the 
wage inequity program as much as they are in a good 
substantial increase in money. They were told within the 
next several weeks we have a long run of cars and the 
money was there, all they needed to do is go in and get 
the cars and they could get the money.

* * * * *

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 82

W.  C.  S l e e m a n



224

PLAINTIFF'S’ EXHIBIT 84

C.I.O.

MEMORANDUM:

Bessemer, Alabama 
July 11, 1951

Saturday-—July 7, 1951—
* * * *

Around noon Saturday one white picket and one colored 
were at the railroad gate, and a train crew when at­
tempting to place cars in the yard they would not run 
over the no strike sign which was placed between the 
middle of the rails immediately outside of the plant 
gates, and the white picket stood on the track. * * *

* * *

Wednesday— July 11,1951—
Railroad attempted to put cars in this A.M. and Gus 

Dickerson, who had been talking to a number of the 
pickets, which was approximately 5— one white and 4 
colored, and who had also been served papers on the 
strike, apparently left word with those picketing to stay 
on the job, and he left immediately prior to the attempt 
to push cars in. * * *

W. C. Sl e e m a n



225

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  Co r r e sp o n d e n c e

Bessemer, Alabama 
July 11, 1951

SUBJECT: C.I.O.

Please Refer To File

MEMORANDUM

This morning at 11:25, Messrs. Guyton, Cassaday, 
Horton, Ellithorpe and Bolen went to the south railroad 
gates, unlocked and opened same, at which time there 
were two white pickets and three colored pickets im­
mediately outside of the gates. Upon our arrival, one of 
the white boys walked toward an automobile located in the 
vicinity of the Birmingham Southern office and when he 
had gotten about half way between the railroad gate and 
the automobile he called out, “ Are we going to eat?” . This 
automobile was a Chevrolet, two-tone (green and black) 
convertible which left immediately thereafter and within 
a very short time, several carloads of pickets, both 
colored and white, arrived on the scene.

At this time, there was located in the center of each 
incoming track, CIO posters made up of a cardboard 
approximately 2! square, tacked up to a stick which was 
driven down between the rails.

* * * *
When the pickets returned to their stand just outside 

the railroad gates, they proceeded to remove and throw 
on the ground, the notes which the deputy and attorneys

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 85



226

had posted and re-established the picket signs in the cen­
ter of the railroad trains. At this time there were ap­
proximately fifteen white and twenty-five or thirty colored 
pickets at the railroad gates.

J. E. B o l e n



227

Bessemer, Alabama 
July 13, 1951

C.I.O.

MEMORANDUM:

Thursday— July 12, 1951—

Was at the plant Thursday afternoon. Found that 
there was probably 15 to 20 men under the tent at the 
picket line. There was no car stopping but now strike 
signs had been placed in the middle of the road, and 
new signs at the railroad gates. 4 or 5 colored pickets 
were at the railroad gates.

* * *• #

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 86

Friday— July 13, 1951—
Was at the plant. The usual 15 or 20 pickets were in 

the tent but none on the road. There were 3 colored at 
the railroad gate. Strike signs were still in the middle 
of the road and at the railroad gates * * *

*  *  *  *



2 2 8

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 93

C.I.O.— Contract Negotiations Bessemer, Alabama
September 12, 1952

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN MANAGER 
OF WORKS’ OFFICE AT 2:00 P.M. FRIDAY, SEP­
TEMBER 12, 1952:

Present for Company:

W. C. Sleeman 
J. E. Bolen 
A. F. Smith

Present for Union:

Van D. Jones 
J. M. Herring 
C. G. Quick 
Perry Thompson 
Gus Dickerson

3. It was further agreed that the Company was to pre­
pare a new seniority list, one headed “ Steel Stores” , 
which would take in the group of men working under 
Joe Decatur and the other headed “Steel Miscellaneous” , 
taking in the men under the direct supervision of Mr. 
Studdard. These two lists will replace the present “ Steel 
Stores” seniority list.

* * * *



229

C.I.O. Bessemer, Alabama
September 13, 1952

MEMORANDUM:
In connection with the signing of the Agreement on Fri­
day, September 12th, so as not to overlook any procedures 
which we are required to follow in addition to the gen­
eral routine of taking care of necessary things, the fol­
lowing should also be taken care o f :

(1) Within the next day or two, since it was agreed 
with the local committee yesterday, in the presence 
of Mr. Van Jones, we are to prepare a new sen­
iority list; one headed “ Steel Stores” , which would 
take into that group those men who have been 
working with Joe Decatur, cranemen, hookons, 
laborers. On the outside crane, building # 3  aisle, 
the crane runway on the west side of the building 
and the unloading on the crane runway, on the 
east side of building ,#3. A separate list is to be 
prepared for the Steel Miscellaneous, which would 
take in all the crane operators, hookons, etc. in the 
steel shop, including the Punch & Shear, Press, 
Steel Construction, Steel Erection and Welding 
building. The balance of the departments, such as 
the Wood Shop, Wood Erection, Forge Shop, etc. 
will remain as is.

* * *

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 94



230

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 95

Inter-Department Correspondence

subject: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA

Please Refer To File CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Bessemer, Alabama 
August 25 & 26, 1954

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN MANAGER 
OF WORKS’ OFFICE AT 1:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY, 
AUGUST 25, 1954, AND AT 10:00 A.M. THURSDAY, 
AUGUST 26, 1954:

Present for Company:

J. E. Bolen
D. L. Golden
A. F. Smith 
J. R. Hudson

Present for Union:

Van D. Jones 
J. M. Herring 
Pete Vines 
W. E. Lee, Jr. 
Perry Thompson 
Gus Dickerson

It was agreed that the related departments, in accordance 
with Section 12— Seniority, would be the Truck Shop, 
Steel Construction, Welding, Steel Erection, Air Brake, 
Wood Erection, Paint and Shipping Track.
The matter of men holding seniority in two departments 
was discussed and it was agreed that such men would 
make their election as to what department they wanted 
to remain in within the period of 30 days after depart­
mental seniority list posted.

* * * *
A. F. Smith



2 8 1

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 
DATED AUGUST 26, 1954

In accordance with the wording in Section 12— Sen­
iority— of the 1954 contract which reads in part: “ Em­
ployees on the track or related departments (such de­
partments to be determined by agreement between the 
Manager of Works and Local Union) already assigned

The related departments shall be:
Truck Shop 
Steel Construction 
Welding 
Steel Erection 
Air Brake 
Wood Erection 
Paint
Shipping Track

United Steelworkers of Pullman-Standard Car
A merica Manufacturing

Local No. 1466
/ s /  Van D. Jones By: / s /  J. E. Bolen

Manager of Works
/s /  J. M. Herring 

/ s / Gus Dickerson 

/ s /  Perry Thompson 

/s /  William P. Vance 

/ s /  W. H. Lee, Jr.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 96



232

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Inter-Department Correspondence

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 98

Bessemer, Alabama 
September 18,1956

subject : United Steelworkers of America

Please Refer to File Contract Negotiations

Memorandum of meeting held in Manager of Works’ 
office at 2:00 P.M. Tuesday, September 18, 1956.

The local union committee and their international rep­
resentative met with the company for the purposes of 
carrying out the requirements of Section VI-B— Senior­
ity, Section XI-0— Distribution of Overtime and Section 
XIV-A.— Holidays, of the new agreement between the 
parties.
The union was presented a supplemental agreement con­
cerning local plant seniority. Such provisions contained 
therein had previous been discussed by Mr. Boles, the 
union representative and the local plant unions com­
mittee during negotiations in Chicago. The supplemental 
agreement was signed by the Manager of Works, all 
members of the local plant union committee and their 
international representative.

Present for Company:
J. D. Doles 
A. F. Smith 
J. R. Hudson

Present for Union:
Van D. Jones
I. M. Herring 
Pete Vence
Earl Walls 
Perry Thompson 
Gus Dickerson

*



238

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 101

United Steelworkers of America 
Production & Maintenance Employees 
Local Union No. 1466

Bessemer, Alabama

August 26, 1959

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Memorandum of meeting held in Assistant Manager of 
Works’ Office at 1:30 P.M. Wednesday, August 26, 1959.

10. MOBILE CRANE AND RAILROAD DEPART­
MENTS— Union called for a combining of the above 
two departments. Union claimed that the infrequent 
use of the mobile crane operations was providing the 
older men in that department very little employ­
ment, and the combining of the two departments 
would give them more job security.

Present for Company:

R. J. Gorski
J. E. Bolen 
W. C. Horton 
A. F. Smith 
J. R. Hudson

Present for Union:

J. M. Herring 
Pete Vance 
Earl Walls 
Perry Thompson 
Gus Dickerson

Rupert Chisholm



234

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 102

PULLMAN-STANDARD CO.

SUBJECT United Steelworkers of America
Production & Maintenance Employees 
Local Union No. 1466

Please Refer To File

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS 
LOCAL ISSUES

Bessemer, Alabama 
January 19, 1960

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN SMITH’S 
OFFICE AT 3:30 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 
1960

The Union submitted the following local issues in antici­
pation of reaching some satisfactory conclusion before 
major contract negotiations resumed in Chicago.

2. Combining Mobile Crane Department with Mainte­
nance Department— Mr. Bolen maintained that to 
combine the two departments would be doing an in­
justice to some of the older men in the maintenance 
department. After considerable discussion, the Union 
agreed with Bolen’s position.

Present for Company Present for Union:

J. E. Bolen 
W. C. Horton 
A. F. Smith 
J. R. Hudson

J. M. Herring 
Pete Vance 
Earl Walls 
Perry Thompson 
Gus Dickerson

*
JRH/es



235

P&M
Monday
August 13, 1962 
10:30 A.M.

UNION:

A. C. BURTTRAM 
RALPH ETHRIDGE 
EARL WALLS 
JOHN PORTER 
GUS DICKERSON 
PERRY THOMPSON

LOCAL WORKING CONDITIONS— CONTRACT NE­
GOTIATIONS:

*  *  *  -X-

Additional proposals submitted by Union on attached list.
*  *  -X* *

Gus Dickerson— should apply plant wide, including the 
erection tracks.
Talking about beginning of an order only.
Something should be included in agreement (Seniority) ; 
thinks Co. should have listed in seniority agreement the 
departments for seniority purposes.
Union interested and men asking for electricians, pipe­
fitters, carpenters and whatever other craft jobs be 
separated and sub-dept. seniority within the mechanical 
department, in a sense, occupational seniority.
Dickerson— objects completely to No. 5, stating that in 
the past the Union has legislated some employees out of 
jobs by separating them into separate units.

* * * *

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 103

COMPANY:

J. E. BOLEN 
W. C. HORTON 
A. F. SMITH 
J. R. HUDSON



236

PLAINTIFFS’ EX. 104

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS 
P&M UNIT

LOCAL NO. 1466
Wednesday 
Sept. 12, 1962 
1:30 P.M.

Company: Union:
Bolen
Horton
Smith
Hudson

Burttram
Walls
Ethridge
Porter
Dickerson

1. L a b o r  P ool— Bolen: What is Union’s position?
Buttram— Lets go back to local working conditions as 

agreed upon in last meeting.

A. # 1  Beginning of Order (Seniority)
Bolen— Will continue to do what we have done in the 

past; boys know we do, when possible, give senior men 
preference.

Ethridge— Don’t want iron clad rule; but want some­
thing where senior man will be given preference pro­
vided he can do the work.

Bolen— Won’t work in shop.
Ethridge— Not what my understanding was in Chicago.
Bolen— [Made] no commitment; try to [indecipherable] 

(Burttram agreed.)
It just won’t work in this plant.



237
Burttram— Think it is bad when the same rule is not 

applied throughout the plant; understand in some depts. 
you do give preference to senior man.

Bolen—Would be changing jobs daily.
Ethridge— Would be a stipulation of over 100 cars be­

fore rule would apply.
Going to have turmoil if you don’t give preference to 
senior man.
Not giving all senior men preference down the line.
Ethridge stated Electricians couldn’t do job when he 
went on vacation. Bolen used this against Ethridge.
Two Stipulations

1. Once man pick job, have no preference to other 
jobs, stay on the job until completed.

2. Rule does not apply unless 100 cars or over.
Gus— Want rule to apply all over shop; if Welder picks 

his, want rivet driver to pick his.
Bolen— Talking about all depts.

[Indecipherable] . . .  not any more, if work for . . . 
will have to work for Harry
Dickerson want all to have it or none.

Ethridge— Was sure misinformed; will get in black & 
white next time.

Burttram— Would be the last one to want to take 
away Mgt’s decision on directing the work force; the 
Union might disagree sometime, when we take it up 
through the griev. procedure.

Gus & Perry— Think Weld Helpers should be given pref­
erence if Welders are allowed to pick their jobs.

Earl— Would you stress to your foremen to allow senior 
man preference.



2 8 8

Bolen— Where practicable; when possible; but the final 
decision is left up to Mgt.

Burttram— Still want you to do some work on this, we’re 
not giving up. * * * *

Ethridge— Fork lift operators—have half in one dept, 
and half in another dept. Think should all be on one 
list. Should have a home base. They’re all under Mr. 
Sullivan on yard. Talking about Steel Stores and 
Misc. Stores Dept, when lift truck operators under 
same supervision. Not talking about men in lumber 
yard. * * *

Ethridge— Want the guards put back in Safety Dept.
Perry— Never been in Safety Dept. Will quit job before 

go in Safety Dept. Not going in it.
* * * *



239

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 105

CO UNION

BOLEN WALLS P&M
HORTON ETHRIDGE CONTRACT
SMITH PORTER NEGOTIATIONS
HUDSON DICKERSON (LOCAL)

THOMPSON 1:30 P.M.

Ethridge—-How about Fork Lift Operators on one sen-
iority list.

Bolen— Up to you boys how you want to work it.
Gus— Think should talk to the men involved; get them 

together & see what the majority want.
Bolen— Go ahead & make up your mind; get with Mr. 

Smith and write it up. We’ll look it over when I get 
back and decide whether or not it would be acceptable
from Mgt’s standpoint.

* * * *



240

PULLMAN-STANDARD 
I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t a l  C o r r e sp o n d e n c e

s u b je c t  UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE 

EMPLOYEES 
LOCAL UNION NO. 1466

PLEASE REFER TO FILE

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 106

BESSEMER, ALABAMA

Memorandum of meeting held in Hudson’s office at 9 :00 
A.M. Thursday, May 27, 1965
SUBJECT: Contract Negotiation of The Local Working 
Conditions Agreement Between Pullman-Standard, Besse­
mer Plant, and United Steelworkers of America, Local 
No. 1466.

PRESENT FOR PRESENT FOR UNION
COMPANY

J. R. Hudson
0. L. Johnson, Jr.
Luke Charles 
F. A. Hasty 
J. F. Hull

J. M. Herring 
Earl Walls 
John Porter 
Guss Dickerson 
Ross Hammonds

PORTER: “ I suggest you form a “ labor pool”  of all
jobs from Job Class 1 through Job Class 6. Anybody 
can do the jobs in the Job Class 1 through 6. Any­
thing over Job Class 6 would be filled only by a quali­
fied employee.”



241

DICKERSON: “ What you have now is satisfactory to
me.”

■3fr  *  *  *

JOHNSON: . . .  All Tool Room Employees should be on
a separate seniority list.

HERRING: “ We don’t want that. The department
would be too small. We did that with the Mobile 
Cranes and it doesn’t work out.”



242

1965
DEPARTMENTS OF PULLMAN-STANDARD 

HAMMOND, INDIANA PLANT

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 108

Whites Blacks

1. Die & Tool 76 2
2. Inspection 22 0
3. Janitors 2 1
4. Maintenance 37 2
5. Stores 10 0
6. Pattern & Template 1 0
7. Production Welding 51 3
8. Transportation 28 10
9. Automatic Welding 11 1

10. Tool Room 10 1
11. Poor Line 6 0
12. Fabricating 43 4
13. Crane Operator 15 3
14. Misc. Clerks & Timekeepers 3 0
15. Car Repair 75 18
16. Car Repair Welding 29 8
17. Wheel & Axle 3 3



243

PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT 
OF THE BESSEMER PLANT 

AS OF 1941

1. Superintendence Department
White Black

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 109

Janitor 0 2
Dispensary Aide 0 1
Laborer 0 1
Blue Print Operator 2 0
Tracer Clerk 1 0
Blue Print Boy 1 0
P.B.X. Oper & Stenographer 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0
Inspector 1 0
Sample Car Man 1 0
Stenographer 1 0

9 4
Total 13

Plant Protection Department
White Black

Policeman 5 0
Extra Policeman 6 0
Clerk 1 0
Punch Operator Policeman 1 0

13 ~ T
Total 13

Wood Mill Department
White Black

Hooker 0 1
Leader 2 0
Machine Operator 2 0
Helper 9 0
Gainer Operator 1 0
Helper & Craneman 1 0
Tool Room Man 1 0

U 1
Total 17



244
4. Lum ber Yard Departm ent

White Black
Inspector 1 0
Helper 24 0
Lumber Grader 1 0
Clerk 2 0
Machine Operator 1 0

29 T
Total 29

Wood Erection Department
White Black

Helper 21 24
Leader 1 0
Transfer Operator 1 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Car Builder 9 0
Material Man 1 0
Helper & Car Builder 6 0
Nailer 12 0
Car Builder & Leader 1 0
Helper & Nailer 2 0
Extra Policeman Helper 1 0
Crane Operator & Helper 1 0
Craneman 1 0
Gang Leader 1 0
Fitter 0 1
Helper & Craneman 1 0

61 25
Total 86

Paint Department
White Black

Painter 0 2
Stock House Man 0 1
Sprayer 0 22
Helper 10 9
Heater 0 1
Stenciller & Cutter 1 0
Stenciller 2 0
Leader 2 0
Car Cleaner 11 0
Stencil Cutter 1 0
Tool Room Man 1 0
Cleaner 1 0

29 35
Total 64



245

White Black
7. Shipping Track Departm ent

Helper 2 4
Bucker 0 1
Leader 1 0
Watchman & Air Tester 1 0
Air Brake Tester 1 0
Riveter 2 0
Car Builder 1 0

8 5
Total 13

Punch and Shear Department
White Black

Machine Operator 2 1
Shear Operator 0 4
Punch Operator 1 6
Helper 19 46
Laborer 0 2
Shearman 0 2
Fitter 0 2
Hooker & Helper 0 1
Leader 1 0
Spacer Operator 4 0
Burner 1 0
Pianola Operator 1 0
Checker 1 0
1st Helper Spacer 1 0
Crane Director 1 0
Night Leader 1 0
Heater 0 1

33 65~
Total 98

Press Department
White Black

Helper 0 33
Press Oper & Night Leader 1 0
Press Operator 5 0
Operator 2 0
Learner 1 0
Machine Operator 1 0
Press Oper Leader 1 0

11 33~
Total 44



246
10.

l i .

Steel Construction
White Black

Fitter 0 63
Bucker 0 7
Heater 0 10
Reamer 0 1
Heater & Bucker 0 1
Hooker 0 1
Helper 10 4
Leader 1 0
Gang Leader 1 0
Riveter 10 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Learner 1 0
Riveter & Helper 8 0
Craneman & Helper 1 0
Tacker 3 0
Leader & Riveter 1 0

38 87
Total 125

Steel Erection
White Black

Heater 0 33
Fitter 0 172
Bucker 0 34
Sticker 0 3
Helper 1 6
Bucker Learner 0 1
Laborer 0 2
Hooker 0 6
Leader 7 0
Riveter 39 0
Pipefitter Helper 8 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Pipefitter 8 0
Riveter Leader 2 0
Gang Leader 3 0
Helper Riveter 5 0
Learner 11 0
Riveter Inspector 1 0
Pipefitter Helper Riveter 1 0
Welder 1 0
Learner Riveter 1 0
Riveter Riveter C.W. 1 0
Tacker 1 0

92 257
Total 349



247

Welding Department
White Black

Welder 25 0
Welder Leader 1 0
Tacker 16 0
Burner 3 0
Tack Welder 4 0
Leader 1 0

50 0
Total 50

Wheel and Axle Department
White Black

Wheel Roller Laborer 0 3
Wheel Roller 0 3
Axle Finisher Helper 1 0
Hooker 0 1
Helper Wheel Roller 0 3
Helper 1 1
Leader 2 0
Wheel Fitter 1 0
Rougher 2 0
Rougher Helper 1 0
Finisher Helper 1 0
Burnisher 1 0
Tool Grinder 1 0
Axle Finisher 2 0
Wheel Press Oper. Learner 1 0
Wheel Checker Wheel Mounter 1 0
Helper Wheel Borer 1 0
Craneman 1 0
Wheel Checker 1 0
Wheel Borer 1 0
Wheel Mtr Wheel Fitter 1 0

20 11
Total 31

Truck Department
White Black

Truck Builder 0 11
Helper 0 3

~~0 14
Total 14



248

15. Forge Departm ent

Heater
Heater Blacksmith Helper
Hooker
Shearman
Helper
Black Smith Helper 
Truck Builder
Bolt Threader Oper Helper
Blacksmith Machine Oper.
Machine Operator
Leader
Learner
Tool Temperer
Checker
Taper Roll Oper. Helper 
Bull Dozier Oper.
Craneman
Helper Trimer Oper.
Machine Oper. Leader
Drill Press Oper. Bull Dozier
Blacksmith
Axle Finisher Helper 
Blacksmith Machine Oper.

White Black
0 4
0 2
0 1
0 1

10 15
0 2
0 1
1 0
1 0
3 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0

32 26
Total 58



249
Die & Tool Department

White Black

Hooker 1 1
Laborer 0 2
Die Man 1 0
Machinist 21 0
Apprentice 2 0
Planer Operator 1 0
Craneman 2 0
Die Man & Tool Room Helper 1 0
Welder 1 0
3 yr Apprentice 1 0
Planer Oper Die Man 1 0
Die Office Helper 1 0
Drill Press Operator 2 0
Tool Room Man 2 0
Tool Room Helper 1 0
Drill Press Oper Die Man 1 0
Handy Man 3 0
Leader 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0
Welder Learner 1 0
Die Man 10 0
Helper 2 0
Tool Man 1 0

5ST 3
Total 61



250

Template Department
White Black

Template Maker 1 0
Apprentice 2 0

3 0
Total 3

Maintenance Department
White Black

Handy Man 1 1
Oiler 0 2
Oiler Laborer 0 1
Switchman Helper 0 1
Switchman 0 2
Laborer Switchman 0 2
Laborer 0 2
Hooker Switchman 0 1
Section Laborer 0 1
Power House Oper. 4 0
Electrician 16 0
Leader 3 0
Armatur Winder 2 0
Pipefitter 8 0
Millwright 10 0
Engineer 1 0
Locomotive Engineer 1 0
Rigger 2 0
Boiler Fireman 3 0
Boiler Oper. 1 0
Cable Splicer 1 0
Carpenter 1 0
Brickmason 1 0
Co-Op Student 1 0

H i 13
Total 70



251

White Black
19. Steel Miscellaneous Departm ent

Craneman Hooker 0 7
Craneman 1 2
Rivet Man 0 1
Hooker 0 35
Crane Operator 0 1
Helper 0 7

14Laborer 0
Tractor Driver 0 2
Craneman Laborer 0 1
Fitter 0 3
Leader 1 0
Helper Crane Operator 1 0
Crane Director 2 0
Hooker Crane Oper. 1 0
Bucker 0 1

6 74
Total 80

Stores Department .
White Black

Truck Driver 0 1
Store House Man 1 0
Unloading Forman 1 0
Stenographer 1 0

0Helper 1
Clerk Store House Attendant 1 0
Clerk 1 0

T T
Total 7



RATE COMPARISONS— PULLMAN AND T. C. I & R. R.
PULLMAN T. C. I & R. R.

P U L L M A N  S T A N D A R D  C A R  M A N U F A C T U R IN G  C O M P A N Y
B E S S E M E R  P L A N T  February 24, 1942

OCCUPATION COL. HOURLY PIECEWORK HOURLY
Machinist W .725 to 1.01 none .925 to 1.07
Welders (Elect) W .65 Start .70 .865 .80 to .97
Electricians W .665 to .90 none: .92 to 1.07
Riveters W .65 Start .75 1.055 .81
Buck-Heat-Fit C .485 Start .51 .66 .595
Punch & Shear Op C .485 .625 .70 (White)

“  Helper C .485 .575 .58 to .60
Spacer Operator W .645 .955 .955
Spacer Helper w .585 .75 .775
Blacksmiths w .645 to .885 .865 .92 to 1.07
Blacksmith Help c .52 to' .56 .595 .60 - .65 - .70
Axle Rough & Fin. w .645 .955 .58 Guarantee

1.305 P.W. Base
Crane Operator w .63 to .66 none .695
Crane Operator c .525 .625 .61
Press Operator w .585 .865 none
Press Helper c .485 .595 none
Wood Car Build w .625 .865 .67 to .945 (Carp)
Painters c .485 .625 .67 to .89 (White)
Millwrights w .665 to .90 none .81-.91 & .97
Template Maker w .775 to .90 none 1.145 to 1.19 (Pattern 

makers)
Laborers c .485 .55

PLA
IN

TIFFS’ E
XH

IB
IT 111



P U L L M A N  S T A N D A R D  C A R  M A N U F A C T U R IN G  C O M P A N Y
B E S S E M E R  P L A N T  February 24, 1942

RATE

OCCUPATION

COMPARISONS--PULLM AN AND NASHVILLE BRIDGE CO.
NASHVILLE BRIDGE

PULLMAN COMPANY
COL. HOURLY PIECEWORK HOURLY

Machinist W .725 to 1.01 none .98 to 1.08
Welders (Electric) w .65 Start .70 .865 .84 to 1.06
Electricians w .665 to .90 none 1.05
Riveters w .65 Start .75 1.055 .95 to 1.00
Buck-Heat-Fit C .485 Start .51 .66 .52 to .62
Punch & Shear Oper c .485 .625 .60 to .78 (White)
Punch & Shear Helper c .485 .575 .44 to .54
Spacer Operator w .645 .955 .88
Spacer Helper w .585 .75 .47 to .60
Blacksmiths w .645 to .885 .865 .96 to 1.05
Craneman w .63 to .66 .75
Wood Car Builders w .625 .865 .56 to .86 (Carp)
Painters c .485 .625 .53 to .65
Millwrights w .665 to .90 none .96
Labor c .485 .40 White .39 Col.

253



254

COMPANY EX 8—FIRST DOCUMENT

U. S. W. A. (CIO)
BESSEMER— Feb. 16, 1943

Meeting with Bargaining Committee:

A meeting was held with United Steel Workers of 
America at 10:00 A. M. this date present were:

For the U. S. W. A.
V. F. Gage, District Representative
Robert F. Aldridge (w) Punch & Shear Dept.
McKinley McCreary (e) Track
Perry L. Thompson (e) Punch & Shear Dept.
Frank Zeigler (c) Bomb Dept.

For the Company:
W. C. Sleeman 
0. A. Wiltsie

*  *  *  *

Mr. Aldridge asked if he could bring up a question as 
to the rate classification, and a general discussion fol­
lowed as to various types of work being done in Punch 
& Shear Department. The colored members also entered 
into the discussion.

*  *  *  *



255

COMPANY EX. 8—SECOND DOCUMENT

Report o f men who reported for work and worked January 10, 1944 

Report o f men who failed to report for work on January 10, 1944 

Report of men who reported and struck January 10, 1944

Departments 
Represented 

by C.I.O. I.A.M. I.B.E.W. TOTAL

Reported for work and worked—

white 257 118 14 389
colored 176 2 0 178
Total 433 120 14 567

Did not report for work—

white 37 16 2 55
colored 212 2 0 214
Total 249 18 2 269

Reported for work and struck—

white 0 0 0 0
colored 61 0 0 61
Total 61 0 0 61

Pullman-Standard Car Mfgr. Co., 
Bessemer, Alabama Plant 
January 11,1944



256

COMPANY EX. 8—THIRD DOCUMENT

Bessemer, Alabama 
May 16, 1947

SUBJECT: CIO Contract Negotiations.

Memorandum of meeting held in the Manager of Works 
office, Bessemer Plant at 1:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 13, 
1947.

Present for Company: Present for Union:

D. L. Golden 
W. C. Sleeman 
J. E. Bolen 
A. F. Smith

B. F. Gage, Field Representative 
J. M. Herring,

Shop Committeeman 
John Hubbard,

Shop Committeeman 
Roy Blankenship,

Shop Committeeman 
Perry Thompson (c),

Shop Committeeman 
Gus Dickerson (c) ,

Shop Committeeman 
* * * *

The question of seniority was then discussed at length, 
the Union wanting seniority for promotions. Mr. Golden 
explained that such would not work at this plant and 
would not agree to the request. Dickerson favored oc­
cupational seniority and to this Mr. Golden stated that 
the Company would not object. * * *

*  *  *  *



257

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

Inter-Department Correspondence

subject: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
SENIORITY

Please Refer To File
Bessemer, Alabama 
September 9,1954

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING HELD IN SAFETY 
CONFERENCE ROOM AT 2:30 P.M. THURSDAY, 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1954.
Present for Company: Present for Union:

W. C. Horton J. M. Herring
A. F. Smith Gus Dickerson
J. R. Hudson Pete Vance ,
L. G. Hintermeier (9 inspectors)
Leon Caldwell
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the seniority- 
provision under the new 1954 agreement and to what 
effect it would have on the inspectors in the Inspection 
Department.
Herring stated that the only way he could interpret the 
contract was the man with the age stayed, provided he 
had the ability to perform the work.
Horton stated that considering A, B and C factors, the 
oldest man would have preference
Herring maintained that the company had to give the 
man a trial at the job, if he said he had the ability to do 
the work. He further stated that he understood the 
company was not running a school and the union would

COMPANY EX. 9—FIRST DOCUMENT



258

agree, and he thought one day would be sufficient to find 
out whether a man had the ability to perform the work.
Horton asserted that when a man refused to take a job 
on the basis of not having the ability to perform the 
work, he would not have to be considered again for 
the job.
Dickerson agreed.
Meeting adjourned at 3 :30 P.M.

A. F. Smith
JRH/es
cc: Messrs. W. C. Sleeman 

J. E. Bolen



259

COMPANY EX. 9—SECOND DOCUMENT 
(UNION PROPOSAL OF 8/13/62)

1. At the beginning of a Job, Track or line senior men 
within that department in respect to his job classifi­
cation shall be given preference wherever possible as 
to job.

2. Wherever possible senior men shall be given prefer­
ence as to shift.

3. Rates are to be studied on all new equipment, jobs 
and new manufacturing methods or general produc­
tion conditions.

4. Drink Boxes, Coffee, milk and sandwich machines be 
placed throughout the plant.

5. All trade or craft jobs be placed on separate seniority 
list.

6. Copies of the local working conditions be placed in the 
up coming contract, (as attached sheet)

Submitted by Union 8-13-62



(CO. PROPOSAL OF 1/19/62) 
• * * * ■ *

SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in­

crease or decrease of forces— the following factors shall 
be considered and where factors “b” , “ c” and “ d” are 
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall gov­
ern:

a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.

In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability 
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica­
tions in the department in which he is then working as 
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same 
department, and other departments, and the advisability 
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability 
and efficiency.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun­
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the em­
ployee does not return to work within ten (10) days 
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com­
pany employment records; (d) lay-off of one or more 
years duration.

New employees are on probation for six months, dur­
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as 
exclusively determined by the Company.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department. However, the Company reserves the right 
under reduced operations or shut-down, to retain such 
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs. Under 
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the 
kind of work performed by leaders, foremen or force 
retained.

260
COMPANY EX. 10—FIRST DOCUMENT

*  *  *  *



261

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE 
AF of L Machinists # 5

Bessemer, Alabama, 
January 22, 1942

A meeting was held with the bargaining committee of 
the A. F. of L. Machinists, beginning at 9:10 A.M.

Those representing the Association were:
J. H. Howard 
J. D. Baumgardner 
A. H. Raines
0. L. Johnson 
L. H. Clymore

Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman 
F. W. Green 
J. E. Bolen
0. A. Wiltsie

Mr. Sleeman handed to committee three sheets of the 
proposed contract in which certain changes had been made 
in some of the sections in line with the discussion at 
previous meeting.
Seniority A good bit of time was spent in discussing 
this section, the committee taking the position that the 
company’s provision for use of employees when running 
small lots of cars or shut-down nullified the seniority. 
Mr. Sleeman explained in detail the purpose of such a 
provision and asked the committee to submit a counter­
proposal if they could work out something to cover such 
condition. The committee contends that they want straight 
departmental seniority.

* * * *

COMPANY EX. 10—SECOND DOCUMENT



Memorandum of Conference
AF of L Machinists— # 6  Bessemer, Alabama,

January 30,1941
A conference was held with the bargaining committee 

of the AF of L Machinists at the general office this date, 
beginning at 2:15 P.M.

Mr. W. C. Finch, of the U.S. Conciliation Service was 
present.

Those representing the Union were:
J. H. Howard 
J. D. Baumgardner 
A. H. Raines
0. L. Johnson

Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman 
F. W. Green 
J. E. Bolen
C. A. Wiltsie

The meeting opened with Mr. Howard stating that the 
committee had asked Mr. Finch of the Conciliation Serv­
ice to come to the conference due to the fact that at last 
conference certain items of proposed contract could not 
be agreed upon between company and the Association.

A discussion took place concerning the following on 
which agreement had not been reached:
Seniority— The committee contends that the last clause 
of this section as offered in company counter-proposal 
nullifies seniority. Mr. Sleeman explained the purpose of 
the clause and stated that the company wanted the right 
under shut-down and running small lots to apply this pro­
vision. Noted by conciliator as not agreed on.

* * * *

262
COMPANY EX. 10—THIRD DOCUMENT



263

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE 
No. 1-

COMPANY EX. 12—FIRST DOCUMENT

Bessemer, Alabama, 
November 26th, 1941

A conference was held in the General Office on No­
vember 26th, at 4:40 P.M. with the representatives of 
the CIO Bargaining Committee.

Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford 
W. M. Sheffield 
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored

Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman 
F. W. Green 
J. E. Bolen 
0. A. Wiltsie

The Committee presented a contract, stating that it 
was a copy of the contract which had previously been 
submitted to Bessemer Plant. * * *

*  *  *  *

SECTION 6— SENIORITY It is understood and agreed 
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall 
be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively 
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:

(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness



264

In increasing and decreasing the forces employees shall 
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they 
entered the services of the company, that is, the youngest 
employee shall be laid off first, continuing on down the 
line. If and when business picks up they shall be re­
employed in the order in which they were laid off, that 
is, the oldest man in point of service with the company 
shall be reemployed first, continuing on through the list 
until the first man laid off would be the last man re­
turned to work. There shall be no employment of new 
men until all previous employees laid off have been given 
an opportunity of returning to work.

* * * *



265

Bessemer, Alabama 
December 9, 1941

SWOC CONTRACT
MR. W. N. BARKER:

# * * *
Under the heading of Seniority they have asked the 

insertion of a portion of the last paragraph Section 6 
reading, “ No employee shall hold seniority in more than 
one department.” We have inserted for counter proposal 
to them the balance of this paragraph which reads, 
“ However, company reserves the right under reduced 
operations or shut-downs to retain such employees as 
will best fit company needs.” Incidentally, this latter 
part of the paragraph, we think, is also covered by the 
second paragraph of this Section 6.

* * * #
W. C. Sl e e m a n

COMPANY EX. 12—SECOND DOCUMENT



266

STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 
Third Floor Steiner Building- 

Telephone 3-3937 
Birmingham, Alabama

Noel R. Beddow, 
Executive Director

William Mitch,
Regional Director

January 7, 1942
Mr. W. C. Sleeman, General Manager 
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.
Bessemer, Alabama
Dear Sir:

Enclosed you will find copy of the counter proposal 
that Mr. Beddow promised you at our last meeting.

We would like to request a meeting for Saturday, 
January 10, at 9:00 A. M. for the purpose of considering 
the various proposals. I feel that we can make this a 
final meeting in view of the discussions that have taken 
place.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  W. H. Crawford 
W. H. Cr a w f o r d  
Representative

WHC/ww * * * *

COMPANY EX. 12—THIRD DOCUMENT

SECTION 6— SENIORITY— It is understood and agreed 
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall 
be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively 
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:



267

(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness

In increasing and decreasing the forces, employees shall 
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they 
entered the serv e company, that is, the youngest
employee shall be laid off f  tinning on down
the line. If and when business picks up they shall be 
reemployed in the order in which they were laid off, that 
is, the oldest in point of service with the company shall 
be reemployed first, continuing on through the list until 
the first man laid off would be the last man returned 
to work. There shall be no employment of new men 
until all previous employees laid off have been given an 
opportunity of returning to work.
No employee shall hold seniority in more than one de­
partment. Any employee who shall leave the employ of 
the Company at any time during the existence of the 
Agreement, or any extension thereof, because of being 
called or, or volunteering for, the United States Military 
or Naval Service in time of emergency shall, upon his 
return from such service, be restored to his former posi­
tion or a position of like seniority and pay, unless the 
position of the Company has so changed as to make this 
impossible, on the basis of his seniority without any loss 
of accumulated seniority right.

* * * *



268

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE
No. 2

Bessemer, Alabama 
November 29th, 1941

A conference was held in the General Office on Novem­
ber 29th, at 9:15 A. M. with the representatives of the 
CIO Bargaining Committee.

Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford 
W. M. Sheffield 
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored

Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman 
F. W. Green 
J. E. Bolen 
0. A. Wiltsie

Counter proposals were submitted to the Committee 
covering each of the sections in the contract they had 
presented. These proposals and changes were discussed 
in detail. Mr. Crawford asked that the wage question 
be passed over at this meeting, and he also stated that 
the Committee wished to withdraw section 13 of their 
proposed contract, pertaining to closed shop. They will 
submit a new proposal containing the Union Maintenance 
Clause.

Mr. Sleeman gave Mr. Crawford typewritten copies of 
the counter proposals offered by the company, and for 
the Vacation Clause he handed Mr. Crawford a copy of

COMPANY EX. 12—FOURTH DOCUMENT



269

the Company’s Pamphlet “Vacation Plan for Hourly and 
Piecework Employees” , dated July 14, 1941.

Next meeting is to be at General Office on Saturday 
morning December 6th, at 9 :00 o’clock.

Adjournment— 12:15 P. M.
* * * *

SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in­

crease or decrease of forces—the following factors shall 
be considered and where factors “b” , “c” , “d” and “e” , 
are relatively equal, length of continuous service shall 
govern:

a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness;
e. Family status; number of dependents.

In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability 
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica­
tions in the department in which he is then working as 
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same 
departments, and other department and the advisability 
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability 
and efficiency.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun­
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off and the 
employee does not return to work within ten (10) days 
after notice is sent to the address according to the Com­
pany employment records.

New employees are on probation for six months, dur­
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as 
exclusively determined by the Management.

* * * *



270

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE

S. W. 0. C. #6 .
Bessemer, Alabama 
January 10, 1942.

A meeting was held with the S. W. 0. C. bargaining 
Committee at the General Office January 10, 1942 at 
9:15 A. M. (Saturday)

Those representing the Union were:
W. H. Crawford 
W. R. Sheffield 
L. R. Smith
McKinley McCreary )
Gus Dickerson ) Colored

Those representing the Company were:
W. C. Sleeman 
F. W. Green 
J. E. Bolen 
0. A. Wiltsie

When the conference opened Mr. Sleeman explained 
that he had a Court Reporter present to take down the 
preliminary statement of the meeting, after which the 
reporter would retire. Mr. Sleeman stated that the pro­
posed contract received from the Union on January 8th 
which was submitted as a counter-proposal to what had 
been offered by the Company is practically a duplicate 
of the proposal originally submitted by the Union. He 
further stated that he did not understand this being sub­
mitted as counter-proposal when it ignored all of the 
points and sections upon which an agreement had been 
reached during the five conferences held for purpose of 
negotiating a contract. Mr. Sleeman further stated the 
Company had kept all appointments, had arranged for

COMPANY EX. 12—FIFTH DOCUMENT



271

proper and complete attendance of company representa­
tives at all meetings. However, he stated the Union had 
postponed a meeting and for another appointed meeting 
the Committee had failed to show up and waited two 
days to telephone reason for not keeping the appointment. 
Mr. Crawford stated he took the responsibility for these 
failures. Mr. Sleeman asked Mr. Crawford if he had 
anything to say to be incorporated in the statement—  
Mr. Crawford replied that he had no remarks to make.

The reporter then retired from the meeting.
Mr. Sleeman then stated that he was unable to under­

stand the submitting as a counter-proposal what amounted 
to a duplicate of the proposal which the Union had origi­
nally submitted and over which first meeting was held 
on November 26, and failure of the Union to take into 
account the items that had been tentatively agreed on 
at various meetings. Mr. Crawford stated that the pro­
posal contained many of the items agreed upon, and Mr. 
Sleeman replied that agreement had been reached on 
practically half the provisions of the tentative proposal, 
However, he stated that he would again go over the 
details of the Union proposed contract by sections, and 
made the following comment:

*  *  *  *

Section 6—Seniority
Mr. Sleeman asked the committee to consider the 

seniority section as offered by the company for the reason 
that it is more applicable to this plant. Also the Union’s 
military clause was discussed, and Mr. Sleeman stated 
he was of the opinion this company would line up with 
other corporations in giving consideration to reemploying 
men who had served in military forces.

*  *  *  *



272

SECTION 6. SENIORITY
It is understood and agreed that in all cases of in­

crease or decrease of forces— the following factors shall 
be considered and where factors “b” , “ c” and “ d” are 
relatively equal, length of continuous service shall govern:

a. Continuous service;
b. Ability to perform the work;
c. Efficiency;
d. Physical fitness.

In taking into consideration an employee’s skill, ability 
and efficiency, the Company may consider his qualifica­
tions in the department in which he is then working as 
well as his qualifications as to other work in the same 
department, and other departments, and the advisability 
of retaining him because of his diversified skill, ability 
and efficiency.

Seniority shall cease upon (a) discharge; (b) volun­
tary quitting; (c) after having been laid off the employee 
does not return to work within ten (10) days after notice 
is sent to the address according to the Company employ­
ment records.

New employees are on probation for six months, dur­
ing which time they may be laid off or discharged as 
exclusively determined by the Company.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department. However, the Company reserves the right 
under reduced operations or shut-down, to retain such 
employees as will best fit the Company’s needs. Under 
such conditions there will be no restrictions as to the kind 
of work performed by leaders, foremen or force retained. 

* * * *

SECTION 6— SENIORITY It is understood and agreed 
that in all cases of promotion the following factors shall



273

be considered, and where (b) and (c) are relatively 
equal, length of continuous service shall govern:

(a) Continuous service
(b) Ability to perform the work
(c) Physical fitness

In increasing and decreasing the forces, employees shall 
be laid off or reemployed in the same position as they 
entered the service of the company, that is, the youngest 
employee shall be laid off first, continuing on down the 
line. If and when business picks up they shall be re- 
employed in the order in which they were laid off, that 
is, the oldest in point of service with the company shall 
be reemployed first, continuing on through the list until 
the first man laid off would be the last man returned to 
work. There shall be no employment of new men until 
all previous employees laid off have been given an op­
portunity of returning to work.

No employee shall hold seniority in more than one 
department. Any employee who shall leave the employ 
of the Company at any time during the existence of this 
agreement, or any extension thereof, because of being 
called or, volunteering for, the United States Military or 
Naval Service in time of emergency shall, upon his re­
turn from such service, be restored to his former position 
or a position of like seniority and pay, unless the position 
of the Company has so changed as to make this im­
possible, on the basis of his seniority without any loss 
of accumulated seniority right.

* * * *



274

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  C o r r e sp o n d e n c e  

S u b j e c t : C.I.O.— CONTRACTS 
P l e a s e  R e f e r  to  F il e

Bessemer, Alabama 
April 4,1952

MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
No doubt Smith’s department is making a comprehen­

sive study in setting out comparative information be­
tween our different existing contracts and in this con­
nection we observed in a recent “ Mill and Factory” 
magazine, a very good article entitled “ What Your 
Union Contract Should Cover” . There is also included 
in this article, a contract bargaining check list. We 
started to analyze Bessemer’s particular contract apply­
ing this check list but we take it from the trend of things 
that this year’s contract will not be handled locally in 
the same manner as previously done.

• * * • * - *

We suggest that seniority be kept as we have it in 
Bessemer; that is, occupational seniority by departments 
(this being requested by the Union some few years ago). 

* * * *

COMPANY EX. 13—FIRST DOCUMENT



275

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

S u b j e c t  : Seniority— U.S. Steel, Republic Steel,
Inland Steel, Youngstown Steel

P l e a s e  R e f e r  to  F il e
July 22,1952

MR. ROBERT C. SMITH:
I have checked with the above companies regarding the 
operation of their seniority clauses and have been in­
formed as follows.
U. S. STEEL— The master contract sets forth the basis 
for accumulating seniority and also the reasons under 
which seniority is broken. Each plant negotiates its own 
seniority agreement covering promotions, demotions, in­
creases and decreases in forces. At South Works for 
example, they have seniority units which comprise sev­
eral occupations and within a department they may have 
as many as five or six units. They do not have plant­
wide seniority. They do have, however, a setup whereby 
men being laid off with three years’ or more service are 
placed on the labor seniority list according to their plant­
wide seniority and such employees may displace Laborers 
throughout the plant having less plant-wide seniority.
REPUBLIC STEEL— Republic is very much like U. S. 
Steel except that they do have a labor pool into which 
laid off men are placed so that when men are needed in 
departments other than from which they are laid off, the 
men with the longest plant seniority are placed on tempo­
rary jobs or used to fill in for absentees in the various 
departments.

COMPANY EX. 13—SECOND DOCUMENT



276

INLAND STEEL— Inland has more or less the same 
setup as U. S. Steel in that they have seniority units 
which might comprise as many as six departments and 
it is possible that each unit might have as many as ten 
or twelve occupations therein. They do not have plant­
wide seniority and only when there is a general depres­
sion in the steel industry does departmental seniority 
apply. In the skill trades, however, they do have occu­
pational seniority within the department.
YOUNGSTOWN STEEL— At Youngstown, as in the 
above three companies, each plant of the company has its 
own seniority setup, and at the South Chicago plant it is 
operated on a departmental basis. In reduction of forces, 
however, the occupation affected is the first to be reduced 
and then if the employee has more departmental senior­
ity than others in a lower rated occupation, then such 
affected employees exercise departmental seniority. In 
this plant, they do have a labor pool which operates the 
same as at Republic.
At all of the above mentioned plants, ability and physi­
cal fitness are the governing factors, and only where 
such factors are relatively equal does length of continu­
ous service govern.

D. L. Golden



277

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

COMPANY EX. 13—THIRD DOCUMENT

S u b j e c t :
P l e a s e  R e f e r  to  F il e

August 14,1952
MR. ROBERT C. SMITH:
Attached are separate memoranda covering my review 
of the labor agreements at Butler, the two Hammond 
Plants and Worcester as per your memorandum of Au­
gust 11.

,/s/ RJG
R . J . G o r s k i

RJG:cs
Attachments



278

BUTLER PLANT
There have been a large number of grievances at this 

plant under the current agreement. We have gone to 
arbitration in 24 cases, and we are currently preparing 
to go to arbitration in another three cases. Most of the 
grievances involved questions of ability under the senior­
ity provisions, disciplinary action, overtime assignment, 
vacations, and tasks.

A review of this agreement in the light of experience 
with respect to these grievances as well as the remaining 
provisions of the agreement which might cause conflict 
in the future, indicates the following desirable changes:

1. Seniority— The Union at this plant has continually 
challenged Management’s application of the ability quali­
fication under this provision. The main source of diffi­
culty in this respect centers in the Electrical Department 
and in the Punch, Shear and Press Departments. The 
Electrical Department seniority list has for a long num­
ber of years included Cranemen. This serves as a basis 
for dispute whenever an electrician vacancy occurs and 
Management fill such vacancy by hiring a qualified elec­
trician. The Union insists, not only because of the sen­
iority list, but because of past practice, that senior 
Cranemen should be given preference in filling Electri­
cian vacancies. The exclusion of Cranemen from the 
Electrical Department seniority list has been attempted 
without success on several occasions in the past. It should 
be attempted again.

As to the Punch, Shear and Press Department, the 
Union has sought to apply a provision in the seniority 
clause which gives preference to senior employees at the 
start of a job, track, or line whenever a senior employee 
completes an item of work in any of these departments. 
Because many items worked on in these departments are 
completed in a relatively short period of time, any ar­



279

rangement that would permit employees to exercise their 
seniority to place themselves on different machines after 
completing each item could lead to disruptions in the flow 
of work which would in turn affect production through­
out the shop. This undesirable provision is contained in 
paragraph 7 of the seniority clause. Every effort should 
be made to eliminate it, or to clarify it in order to avoid 
conflict in those areas where its application is completely 
impossible.

Overtime, Saturday and Sunday work are distributed 
under various types of seniority arrangements in the 
different departments. Some departments use seniority 
alone as a basis for distributing such work, some rotate, 
while others provide that if an employee’s job works he 
works, with all other overtime being distributed accord­
ing to seniority or rotation. A number of grievances 
have originated due to the fact that these overtime dis­
tribution arrangements have not been complied with, or 
have been complied with, but have not been carried out 
solely because of employee failure to report as scheduled. 
For example, the Union insists that when a group of 
employees have been scheduled for overtime work accord­
ing to their applicable overtime distribution agreement, 
Management is obligated to follow seniority in rearrang­
ing the work force or filling in vacancies if employees 
properly scheduled for such work fail to report for the 
overtime assignment. We should have a detailed under­
standing to cover the various ramifications of overtime 
assignments which are not now set forth in writing and 
subject to perpetual dispute.

Our people at Butler have suggested certain other 
changes in the seniority provision, but a number of these 
suggestions, I believe, stem from administration difficul­
ties rather than principle or operating difficulties. These 
administration difficulties, I believe, could be ironed out 
satisfactorily without attempting to eliminate basic pro­



2 8 0

visions which are not, in my opinion, the source of dif­
ficulty in these particular areas.

2. Disciplinary Action— The Union’s objection to dis­
ciplinary action stems from its contention that there is 
no set of rules to guide an employee in his conduct so 
that he might avoid penalty. A demerit slip system 
which has been in use for a number of years is not rec­
ognized by the Union for the reason that there is no 
cut-off or terminal point; that is, an employee who is 
warned against a further violation of some rule via a 
demerit slip is subject to layoff or discharge in the event 
of a subsequent violation even though it might occur a 
year or more after the first offense. In the case of de­
merits for absenteeism, for example, the Union points 
to innumerable cases where demerits have not been is­
sued in the case of key employees. The Union contends 
that this is discrimination and that before it will recog­
nize the merit system there will have to be a specific 
agreement regarding the issuance of demerits and all 
penalties for violation of agreed upon rules will have to 
be administered uniformily.

3. Vacations— The vacation provision under this agree­
ment incorrectly bases eligibility for two weeks vacations 
on the “ receipt of earnings” in 60 per cent of the pay 
periods, etc. This language should be made consistent 
with the language which applies to employees qualifying 
for one week and three week vacations where the eligi­
bility is based on the performance of work in 60 per 
cent of the pay periods.

Our Butler people have expressed dissatisfaction with 
the present provision concerning the calculation of vaca­
tion pay. Vacation pay under the present contract is 
calculated on the basis of the employee’s average straight 
time hourly earnings during the two closed and calcu­
lated pay periods immediately preceding the employee’s 
vacation. This basis presents a problem whenever it is



2 8 1

necessary to deny an employee’s request for a particular 
vacation period because of the possibility of a variation 
in earnings. Employees are reluctant to take a vacation 
when their earnings are low, which is the time when we 
can usually spare them more readily then when their 
earnings are high, which is the time when employees 
would like to take their vacation. In order to avoid this 
problem, our Butler people have suggested that vacation 
pay be based on the employee’s average hourly earnings 
during the 12 months preceding the employee’s vacation 
or during the preceding calendar year with provision for 
adjusting such average rate in the light of any inter­
vening increases. At Michigan City, we use the per­
centages of the preceding year’s earnings, but we do not 
adjust such amounts in the light of intervening wage 
increases.

4. Task— The present task clause in this agreement 
has thus far served well to protect us in the disputes 
which have arisen relating to task. For this reason, it 
seems quite likely that the Union will make a strong 
effort to either revise or eliminate it.

5. Military Clause— This clause should be revised to 
conform with the present Selective Service Act. It now 
refers to the act of 1940.

HAMMOND CAR PLANT
We have had relatively few grievances at this plant. 

The grievances which did arise did not originate out of 
any ambiguity under the contract. As a matter of fact 
in all of the cases I have had occasion to handle, the 
contract served us well in maintaining our position.

Regarding provisions in the agreement that might be 
modified, changed, amended or eliminated entirely to our 
advantage, the following is submitted for consideration:



2 8 2

1. Recognition— The current bargaining unit by its 
inclusion of “ factory clerks”  covers timekeepers. Several 
months ago John Russell raised a question as to whether 
it would be possible to have timekeepers eliminated from 
the bargaining unit because it is planned to have them 
placed on a salary basis and otherwise change their 
duties, making it undesirable to have them included in 
the bargaining unit, A job description for use as a basis 
in determining whether we could present a sound case in 
an effort to have this classification removed from the 
unit was requested of Russell by Mr. Shane. To my 
knowledge, this job description has not been submitted 
as yet. This matter should be taken up and resolved 
among ourselves before a new contract is negotiated so 
that if there is any good basis for excluding this classi­
fication, it can be done at the proper time.

2. Wages— Paragraph 3 provides that where a pro­
duction item is to be made on a production day-rate 
basis, the hourly day rate is to be established by using 
the day rate of the occupation and adding to it 60 per 
cent of the difference between the day rate and the piece 
work expectancy rate. A number of months ago Messrs. 
Trautman and Wulff implied that this provision was un­
desirable from Management’s viewpoint. We should have 
the facts as to why this provision is undesirable to our 
plant people and their recommendation concerning a 
change in this provision or an elimination thereof.

3. Vacations— The vacation provision in this contract, 
as is the case at the Wheel Foundry, Butler and Wor­
cester, contains reference to the “ receipt of earnings” 
with respect to employees who have seniority of five 
years. This should be corrected to conform with the re­
quirement that an employee must work in at least 60 
per cent of the pay periods as provided with reference 
to one year and twenty-five year employees.



283

4. Grievances— Step E of the grievance procedure 
which provides for referring unsettled grievances to arbi­
tration should contain a time limitation. Under the pres­
ent language, the Union is not required to request re­
ferral of an unsettled grievance to arbitration within a 
specified period of time. In our Butler contract, for ex­
ample, the Union must notify the Company within five 
days after the discussion of the grievance in the final 
step between the parties as to whether it desires to pro­
ceed to arbitration.

5. Military Clause— The current military clause refers 
to the Selective Service Act of 1940 and also provides for 
leaves of absence to employees entering the U. S. Mari­
time service. This provision, of course, should be revised 
to conform with the current Selective Service Act.

6. Termination— This clause now contains a provision 
similar to the General Motors catch-all provision to pro­
tect us against having to negotiate at the pleasure of the 
Union with respect to any matter of wages, hours of 
work, and working conditions not specifically covered 
within the contract. However, you may wish to consider 
substituting the G.M. language for the current language 
in this contract.

HAMMOND WHEEL FOUNDRY

We have had relatively few grievances at this plant. 
The grievances which did arise did not occur as the 
result of any contract defects. In all of the cases I have 
had occasion to handle at this plant, the contract served 
well to maintain our position.

Regarding provisions in the agreement that might be 
modified, changed, amended, or eliminated entirely to our 
advantage, I suggested the following points for con­
sideration :



284

1. Grievances— Step E of the grievance procedure 
which covers the submission of unsettled grievances to 
arbitration should require the Union to submit itŝ  re­
quest for arbitration within a specified period of time.

2. Military Clause— The military clause should be re­
vised. It refers now to the Selective Service Act of 1940.

3. Vacations— The provision in this clause referring 
to employees qualifying for two week vacations should 
be revised to eliminate reference to the “ receipt of earn­
ings.” This language should be made consistent with 
the language applied to employees qualifying for one week 
and three week vacations which language refers to the 
performance of work.

4. Termination— The final paragraph of this pro­
vision is similar to the G.M. provision which eliminates 
any obligation to negotiate with the Union during the 
term of the contract on any matters of wages, hours of 
work and working conditions not specifically covered by 
the agreement. You may, however, wish to substitute 
the G.M. language for this current provision.

WORCESTER
The number of grievances at this plant have been large 

with the emphasis being on questions of seniority. An­
other sizable group of grievances at this plant have 
concerned the matter of wages; these, of course, are not 
questions which resulted from any contract failure, but 
rather because of this Union’s insistance on using the 
grievance procedure as a method of negotiating wage 
rate increases.

A review of this agreement indicates the following de­
sirable changes:

1. Seniority— Plant-wide seniority is provided for un­
der this agreement and disputes occur whenever forces 
are increased or decreased due to the fact that this



285

Union challenges all applications of the ability factor. 
This is true even though the current agreement provides 
for the consideration of seniority in any increase or de­
crease in force where the employee “ has the necessary 
skill and ability to perform the work involved." The use 
of the term “ necessary skill and ability” is stronger than 
in our other contracts where the simple term “ ability” 
applies. There was some indication for a short period 
during discussion of seniority grievances, that Interna­
tional Representative Brennan might be willing to agree 
that the application of ability would be based on the 
Company’s records; i.e., if an employee’s record shows 
that he has satisfactorily performed like or similar work 
for the Company at some previous time, such employee 
would be considered as having ability to perform the 
work involved. Some effort should be made in negotiat­
ing a new contract to clarify the matter of ability.

2. Vacations— The same incorrect terminology that 
appears in the Butler and Hammond agreements with 
respect to employees qualifying for two week vacations 
(use of the term “ earnings” instead of “work” ) appears 
in the vacation clause in this contract.

3. Termination— The termination provision in this 
agreement does not contain any language to prevent 
the Union from bringing up for negotiation during the 
life of the contract, any matter not specifically set forth 
in the agreement. The G. M. clause or something similar 
to it should be included in this contract.



286

CHICAGO— August 27, 1952
MR. C, W. BRYAN, Jr.:

* * * *
Germano stated that the Union would prefer to negotiate, 
here in Chicago or some other central point, a master 
contract for the entire Company on all issues. However, 
he said he would be willing to negotiate with us here at 
the Company level on the basic principles of the Steel 
settlement, and upon reaching an agreement on the prin­
ciples, call to Chicago a representative of each of the six 
local Unions and an International representative of each 
of the six local Unions for a discussion with him on the 
agreement of principles reached with us. It was his 
thought that the local Union representative and local In­
ternational representative could then go to the plant which 
they represented and negotiate the rest of the labor agree­
ment with the Works Manager. * * *
Germano stated that a “must,” whether we bargain a 
local plant contract or bargain a Company-wide master 
contract, is a uniform termination date of labor agree­
ments at the six plants represented by the Steelworkers 
— CIO.

*  *  *  *

COMPANY EX. 13—FOURTH DOCUMENT

R o b e r t  C. S m it h



287

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR 
MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

I n t e r -D e p a r t m e n t  C o r r e s p o n d e n c e

s u b j e c t : DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY

PLEASE REFER TO FILE
Bessemer, Alabama 
July 10, 1953

MR. J.E. BOLEN:
After our meeting with Mr. Sleeman this morning and 

checking our seniority file would like to suggest to you 
that the Truck & Tractor Department, also Miscellaneous 
Stores Department be considered along with the Steel 
Stores set-up, as we have several employees in the Mis­
cellaneous Stores Department working now under Mr. 
Studdard and carrying seniority in Miscellaneous Stores 
Dept, under Mr. Bradshaw’s responsibility.

H e r m a n  T h o m p s o n

COMPANY EX. 13—FIFTH DOCUMENT

HST :bc
cc: Messrs. W. C. Sleeman 

A. F. Smith



288

COMPANY EX. 14—FIRST DOCUMENT 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

Tenth Region
Ten Forsyth Street Building 

Atlanta, Georgia

August 2, 1941

Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co.
401 No. 24th Street 
Bessemer, Alabama

Re: Case No. X-R-468

Gentlemen:
This office is in receipt of a petition for investigation 

and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, such petition 
having been filed by the Steel Workers Organizing Com­
mittee. In this petition it is alleged that the appropriate 
unit for purposes of collective bargaining is composed 
of all production and maintenance employees, exclusive of 
foremen, superintendents and clerical forces. It is stated 
further that the Union represents 1000 of the employees 
in the above classification.

* * * *



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 
Case No. R-2952 

I n  t h e  M a t t e r  of
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  Ca r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  C o m p a n y

and
S t e e l  W o r k e r s  Or g a n iz in g  C o m m it t e e

MOTION ON BEHALF OF PULLMAN-STANDARD 
CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Now comes Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing 
Company, a party in the above styled cause, and respect­
fully moves this honorable Board to consider and 
amend its Decision and Direction of Elections heretofore 
entered in said cause as of the 12th day of September, 
1941, in the following particulars, namely:

(1) By striking out from the Board’s Findings of Fact 
that sub-paragraph of paragraph numbered V reading as 
follows:

“ Watchmen and plant-protection employees. The 
Federal Labor Union desires the inclusion of these 
employees in the industrial unit. The S.W.O.C. has 
not expressed its position with regard to these em­
ployees. We shall include the watchmen and plant- 
protection employees in the industrial unit.”

and by substituting therefor the words in substance:
“ Watchmen and plant-protection employees shall 

be excluded from both the craft and industrial 
units.”

(2) By striking out from paragraph 3 of Direction 
of Elections the words appearing in lie 3 of said para­
graph: “watchmen, plant-protection employees,” .

289
COMPANY EX. 14—SECOND DOCUMENT



290
In support of the above and foregoing motion Pullman- 

Standard Car Manufacturing Company respectfully sub­
mits that it is inappropriate that watchmen and plant- 
protection employees be included in any collective bar­
gaining unit for the obvious reason that in the event 
of labor troubles of any kind or character such watch­
men and plant-protection employees should have no selfish 
or personal interest in the result of any such labor 
troubles, but should be in a position to discharge their 
full duties free of any influence of selfish or personal 
interest in the union or any such labor difficulties.

The S.W.O.C. has advised the company through Noel 
R. Beddow, its Regional Director, that S.W.O.C. will con­
sent and agree to the exclusion of said watchmen and 
plant-protection employees from voting in any of said 
elections. The company anticipates that appropriate rep­
resentatives of Federal Labor Union will be willing to 
make a similar agreement if and when the company is 
able to contact such representatives and ascertain their 
views. The company is now endeavoring to contact such 
representatives and will advise this Board as soon as 
such contact has been made whether or not the said 
Federal Labor Union will make a like stipulation with 
regard to the exclusion of such watchmen and plant-pro­
tection employees.

Respectfully submitted,
P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  C a r  

M a n u f a c t u r in g  Co m p a n y

By C a b a n is s  & J o h n s t o n

Its Attorneys
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing motion 

has been mailed to Noel R. Beddow, at Birmingham, Alabama, 
Regional Director of Steel Workers Organizing Committee, J. L. 
Giglio, at Birmingham, Alabama, representative of Federal Labor 
Union, J. R. May, at Montgomery, Alabama, attorney for IBEW, 
and Mr. J. H. Howard, Washington, D.C. and Mr. J. D. Baum­
gardner, at Birmingham, Alabama, attorneys for IAM.

Jelks H. Cabaniss



291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 
Case No. B-2952 

I n  t h e  M a t t e r  of

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d  Ca r  M a n u f a c t u r in g  C o m p a n y

a n d

S t e e l w o r k e r s  O r g a n iz in g  C o m m it t e e

MOTION ON BEHALF OF STEEL WORKERS OR­
GANIZING COMMITTEE FOR REHEARING IN 
MATTER OF INSTALLATION AND CONFIRMA­
TION OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 9(c) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RE­
LATIONS ACT.
Comes your Petitioner in the above styled cause and 

respectfully move this Honorable Board to reconsider 
the Decision and Direction of Election heretofore ren­
dered in the above styled cause on September 12, 1941, 
and grant Petitioner a rehearing in said cause and for 
grounds of said Motion assigns the following:

1. That the Decision and Direction of Election is not 
supported by the Record in said case.

2. The Record affirmatively shows that the Steel Work­
ers Organizing Committee has carried on negotia­
tions in collective bargaining with the Pullman 
Standard Car Manufacturing Company for a period 
of more than four years regardless of the fact that 
said negotiations have been conducted with little 
success. Petitioner feels that it should not be penal­
ized because of the fact that these negotiations have 
been unsuccessful which would be the case if the 
fact of such negotiations were ignored by this Hon­

COMPANY EX. 14—THIRD DOCUMENT



292

orable Board in the matter. The negotiations have 
been unsuccessful because of the failure of the com­
pany to negotiate with the union in good faith and 
thus to ignore the fact of these negotiations would 
be in effect to penalize the union for the unfair 
labor practices indulged in by the employer.

* * * *
4. The Record shows that the unit contended for by 

the International Association of Machinists is made 
up of employees who have never heretofore been 
classed as machinists either by the Intervening 
union or by the company. Said employees work 
in many diversified and unrelated types of work 
and are spread in small groups all over the com­
pany’s plant and have very little in common either 
from the standpoint of similarity of tasks, rates of 
pay or degree of skill.

Your Petitioner feels that if the Decision heretofore 
rendered in this case is allowed to stand that an election 
held pursuant to such Decision and Direction of Election 
will in no way be instrumental in bringing about har­
mony in the operation of the Company’s plant but rather 
will totally and entirely defeat the purposes and policies 
of the National Labor Relations Act, as stated in Sec­
tion 1 thereof.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, Your Petitioner, Steel 
Workers Organizing Committee, moves this Honorable 
Board to again review the Record in this case and enter 
an order withdrawing the Decision and Direction of 
Election heretofore rendered on September 12, 1941 and 
enter an order directing that an election be held on the 
basis of the finding by the Board that the appropriate 
unit for such election shall be an industrial unit in which 
all the production and maintenance employees exclusive 
of foreman, superintendents and clerical forces, be per­
mitted to vote and thus determine whether they desire



to be represented by the Steel Workers Organizing Com­
mittee, either of the three intervening unions or by no 
union.

Petitioner prays for such other, further or more gen­
eral relief to which it may be entitled in the premises.

Respectfully submitted.

S t e e l w o r k e r s  O r g a n iz in g  C o m m it t e e  
Affiliated with Congress of 

Industrial Organizations 
Steiner Bldg., Birmingham, Ala.

By: / s /  J. R. Crawford, Representative
Noel R. Beddow, Regional Director



294

COMPANY EX. 14—FOURTH DOCUMENT

CABANISS & JOHNSTON 
First National Building 

Birmingham

January 19, 1942
Mr. W. C. Sleeman,
Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Co.,
Bessemer, Alabama.

Dear Mr. Sleeman:
As I telephoned the office, representatives of the NLRB 

and also the Regional Director in Atlanta, are calling 
and writing to ask that the Company let them have re­
turn with its OK so far as the Company is concerned, 
of the agreement as to reclassification agreed on between 
AFL and CIO.

I see no adverse bearing in letting them have return 
of the memorandum with the Company’s OK, particu­
larly if as I suggested, it be made subject to NLRB. 
Since the Atlanta office seems to attach some importance 
to it I suggest you let it go forward.

It seems certain now that AFL and CIO have buried 
the hatchet and will within a few days form a solid 
front to maintain their extraordinary position both now 
and after the war; in short, that we will have labor 
control of government and industry in line with the 
British post-war certainty. So far as this plant is con­
cerned it doesn’t seem to me to make much difference as 
to the classification.

Very truly yours,

FJ :LC
/ s /  Forney Johnston



295

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
— <  CIO > —

Third Floor Steiner Building 
Birmingham 3, Alabama 

[ u n io n  b u g ]

May 18,1944
N o e l  R. B e d d o w , R. E . F a r r ,

SOUTHERN DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DISTRICT 36
Mr. W. C. Sleeman 
Manager of Works 
Pullman Car Mfg. Co.
Bessemer, Alabama
Dear Sir:

We have been requested by what we think might be 
a substantial majority of your employees, who are now 
in the I.A.M. Unit, to bargain for them in regards to 
rate of pay, hours of work and conditions of employment.

We are not soliciting or coercing any employees in 
this department to become members of our Union and the 
request that has been made by them has been volun­
tarily on their part.

They also request that we ask you for a negotiation 
of a contract which would include these employees in the 
same contract that we have with you in the United Steel­
workers’ Bargaining Unit.

Thanking you for your past cooperation, I am

Very truly yours,

/ s /  R. E. Farr
R. E . F a r r , Director 
District #36

COMPANY EX. 14—FIFTH DOCUMENT

REF/df



296

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Tenth Region 
10 Forsyth Street 
Atlanta 3, Georgia

May 25, 1944

Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company 
401 North 24th Street 
Bessemer, Alabama

Re: Case No. 10-R-1212

COMPANY EX. 14—SIXTH DOCUMENT

Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that United Steelworkers of 

America, May 25, 1944, filed with this office a petition 
for investigation and certification of representatives, pur­
suant to the provisions of the National Labor Relations 
Act, alleging that a question affecting commerce has 
arisen concerning the representation of employees in the 
following unit:

“ All machinists, apprentices and helpers, employees in 
tool and die shop classified as die men, machine opera­
tors, toolroom men, toolroom helpers, handymen, and 
cranemen, millwrights, production and maintenance weld­
ers, employees in wheel, axle and truck shop, except for 
foremen, leaders and clerical employees.”

* * * *



297

Bessemer, Alabama 
May 26, 1944

MR. N. B. JOHNSON:
We are attaching photostat copy of NLRB’s letter of 

May 25, 1944, which has been cased under the number 
10-R-1212, in which it is noted the CIO is petitioning for 
an investigation and certification of representatives from 
the departments now represented by the IAM. It so hap­
pens (as is usually the case) the request by the CIO is 
to our notion all “balled up” in that they are asking for 
representation which they already have; that is, the 
Truck Shop. They apparently want representation for 
all departments for whom the IAM now represents, but 
do not request same in that they have omitted the fol­
lowing occupations which were specifically set out as a 
part of the IAM bargaining unit in the letter signed by 
both the IAM and the Steelworkers Organizing Com­
mittee, which clarified the NLRB’s order for this bar­
gaining unit. The occupations which have been omitted 
in this letter are taekers, burners and welder helpers in 
the Welding Department, the Air Brake Department in­
cluding pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers, air testers and the 
tool room employees in the Steel Erection Department.

It is hardly conceivable they would want IAM to rep­
resent these particular departments in that there are 
only approximately 45 employees in these departments 
which have been omitted.

*  *  *  *

W. C. Sl e e m a n

48- *  *  *

COMPANY EX. 14—SEVENTH DOCUMENT



298

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA 
—  <C IO > —

Third Floor Steiner Building 
Birmingham 3, Alamaba

[UNION BUG]

OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 4-8534
R. E . F a r r  

DIRECTOR DISTRICT 36
December 12,1945

Mr. W.C. Sleeman, Manager 
Pullman Standard Car Mfg. Co.
Bessemer Plant
401 - North 24th Street
Bessemer, Ala.

Dear Sir:
This is to inform you that the majority of the elec­

tricians, electrician helpers and employees of the elec­
trical department, now in a unit set up by the National 
Labor Relations Board known as the I.B.E.W. unit of 
your plant, has requested the United tSeelworkers to 
represent them.

We would like to meet with you at an early date. 
Looking forward to getting these men under a workable 
agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, 
I am

Yours truly,

/ s /  R. M. Poarch 
R. M. P o a r c h  
Field Representative

[SEAL]

COMPANY EX. 14-EIGHTH DOCUMENT

RMP/fh
REGISTERED MAIL



299

[SEAL] [EMBLEM]

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 
Tenth Region

300 Ten Forsyth Street Building 
Atlanta 3, Georgia

January 18, 1946

Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company 
401 North 24th Street 
Bessemer, Alabama

Re: Case No. 10-R-1711

Gentlemen:
United Steelworkers of America (CIO) has filed with 

this office a Petition for Certification of Representatives, 
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations 
Act, claiming to represent a majority of the employees 
in the following allegedly appropriate unit:

The Unit now covered by the United Steelworkers 
of American to be expanded to include all production 
and maintenance employees that were formerly in 
the I.B.E.W. Unit except for foremen and super­
visors.

This matter has been referred ot Field Examiner 
Frederick A. Alcher for handling. On or before January 
25, 1946, will you please forward to him in this office 
the following information:

1. One completed copy of the enclosed Interstate Com­
merce Questionnaire. You may retain the other copy 
of your files.

2. Name of any labor organization that has a con­
tract with you (and two copies of the contract) or has

COMPANY EX. 14—NINTH DOCUMENT



300

made a request for recognition as collective bargaining 
representative of any of the employees in petitioner’s 
alleged appropriate unit.

3. Your position as to the appropriateness of the unit 
set forth in the petition as described in the first para­
graph of this letter. If you disagree as to the appropri­
ateness of the unit, please state in detail the unit you 
believe to be appropriate and your reasons for any 
changes you suggest.

4. An alphabetical list of all employees showing job 
classifications as of the present date and a statement of 
the percentage turnover per month. This list is neces­
sary to determine whether or not the union has a suffi­
cient interest to warrant proceeding with the case and 
holding an election. Failure to furnish the list will, of 
course, result in the acceptance of the union’s evidence 
as to its interest without further check.

5. Any reason why an election should not be held in 
the unit as set forth in the first paragraph of this letter 
at this time or in the near furnish.

We wish to cooperate in every possible way with you 
and the labor organization involved so that there may 
be an early and appropriate disposition of this matter. 
Please do not hesitate to discuss with the Field Examiner 
any question you may have.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  Paul L. Styles 
P a u l  L. S t y l e s  
Regional Director

Enclosures :

Interstate Commerce Questionnaire— 2



301

(Suggested form of letter to NLRB in reply to 
request dated January 18, 1946)

Mr. Fred Aicher, Field Examiner,
National Labor Relations Board,
300 Ten Forsyth Street Building,
Atlanta 3, Georgia.

Dear Sir:
In reply to the letter of Regional Director Paul L. 

Styles, we advise as follows:
1. Copy of Interstate Commerce Questionnaire is re­

turned, except that questions IX to XVI are included in 
our reply to XVI, which concedes that the Company’s 
purchase of interstate materials and the nature of busi­
ness is sufficient to subject the Company’s operation at 
Bessemer to the National Labor Relations Act. This 
has been determined in previous proceedings and is not 
questioned.

2. Hereto attached are two copies of contract between 
this Company and International Brotherhood of Electri­
cal Workers heretofore certified as bargaining agency 
for the electrical workers at this Company’s Bessemer 
plant, together with an amendment dated October 9, 
1944. This contract was in effect on October 31, 1945 
when all of the electrical workers at that plant struck. 
This strike resulted in a stoppage of production work at 
the plant for more than a month and until the Company 
was able to replace all of the striking workers. All of 
the striking employees have applied for or have ac­
cepted termination slips. Several have requested re­
employment, but have not been re-employed on account 
of the fact that their places were and are filled by new 
workers employed during the course of the strike. At 
the time of the strike the Company employed thirteen

COMPANY EX. 14—TENTH DOCUMENT



302

electrical workers. As of the period January 14 - January 
20th, the Company had in its employ twenty-eight work­
ers in that unit. The excess number were employed on 
account of maintenance neglected during the strike.

3. The Company understands that a separate unit for 
electrical workers in the plant is not requested by the 
petitioning unit, but that the petition of the Union is 
that the electrical workers be included among the pro­
duction and maintenance employees now represented by 
United Steelworkers of America (CIO). In short, the 
Company understands that the petition is that the pro­
posed bargaining unit represented by United Steelwork­
ers of America is to include all production and main­
tenance employees at the Bessemer plant other than ex­
ecutive, supervisory, clerical, foremen and leaders with 
the exception of the following:

All machinists, machinist apprentices, machinist 
helpers; employees in tool and die shop classified as 
die men, machine operators, toolroom men, toolroom 
helpers, handy-men and crane men, other than 
laborers and hook-ons; also all millwrights.

Presently included within this general unit, as a re­
sult of agreement between International Association of 
Machinists and United Steelworkers of America Local 
No. 1466, are the following workers, who are already 
represented by said United Steelworkers of America 
(CIO), with the general exception of supervisory and 
clerical employees first above stated, viz:

“ * * all employees classified as production and main­
tenance burners, welders, tackers, burner and welder 
helpers; employees in the wheel and axle depart­
ment ; airbrake production employees classified as 
pipe fitters, pipe fitter helpers and airbrake testers; 
employees in erection department classified as tool­
room men and tool-room helpers, *



303

This Company takes no position for or against the 
practical inclusion of electrical workers in the above or 
any bargaining unit with which the electrical workers 
employed at this plant desire to affiliate, but does not 
consider a general vote of all plant employees desirable, 
for the reason stated below.

4. Attached hereto is a list showing all electrical work­
ers in the Bessemer plant on the payroll January 14- 
January 20, 1946. Between October 31st and December 
— , when electrical work was resumed at the plant, the 
turnover was 100% as a result of replacement of workers 
who had struck or quit. Since resumption of operations 
on December — , 1945, a total of ——  electrical workers
had been employed and ------  of that number have been
released or quit.

5. The Company does not see any reason why there 
should be a general election of all workers in the Com­
pany’s Bessemer plant to vote on the proposed enlarged 
unit set forth in the petition. Such action would un­
necessarily involve participation by the large number of 
workers at the plant already represented by United 
Steelworkers of America in a detail in which they are 
not, from a practical standpoint, interested. It would 
involve unnecessary expense and confusion in operations 
to call on these general workers to vote with respect to 
the extension of the unit to include electrical workers. 
The Company suggests that any question of representa­
tion of the electrical workers be determined by check or 
vote of such workers.

Very truly yours,

P u l l m a n  S t a n d a r d  C ar  
M a n u f a c t u r in g  C o m p a n y

(Bessemer Plant)

By



304

PULLMAN-STANDARD CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY 
BESSEMER, ALABAMA PLANT

Electrical Department Employees
Payroll 1-4 to 1-20 inclusive

Name____________________________ Occupation
William Anthony 
Curtis G. Bailey 
Gerald Beggs 
James A. Carver 
Oscar L. Carver 
George A. Christian 
Frank Clements 
William W. Dawkins 
Charles H. Dove 
John Dove 
Louis Edwards 
John P. Fleming 
Willie E. Hall 
Joe Harper
Joseph S. Hollingsworth, Sr. 
John L. Kelley 
Jesse A. Lanier 
John D. McCrory, Jr.
Orris C. Miller 
Wallace F. Milner 
Arthur L. Phillips 
Lloyd B. Rainey 
John A. Roberts 
William M. Roberts 
Menendezth L. Snow 
Harvey D. Trawick 
Hugh B. Yallely 
William R. Wamiek

Electrician
Electrician
Power House Operator
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Power House Operator
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician Helper
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician
Electrician



305

COMPANY EX. 15 

MISCELLANEOUS
Bessemer, Alabama 
January 30, 1948

MEMORANDUM TO FILE:
This morning at approximately 10:30 Mr. R. C. Logan, 

Superintendent, and Mr. K. C. Chapman, Assistant to 
Mr. Logan, of the Eastern Car Company, Limited, of 
Trenton, Nova Scotia, came to the Plant and were taken 
through the Plant by Bolen.

During their visit to the Plant, Bolen was told that 
at the present time they were building 15 standard box 
cars per day with a working force of approximately 1100 
men and an additional 100 men were employed making 
doors (Camel) and other necessary material.

They advised their building was 90' wide and approxi­
mately 1200' long, with an erection track of 8 positions 
for hopper cars or 9 positions for box cars. Did not 
know their rivet driving averages nor did not discuss 
in detail production methods or amounts of production- 
obtained, however, they did leave with us a copy of their 
car contract which included all their hourly guarantee 
rates and we were advised that these rates had been 
increased by 5y2̂  per hour recently. They also advised 
their piece work men were expected to earn from 30 to 
50% above their hourly guarantee rates.

* * * *

THE EASTERN CAR COMPANY, LTD. 
RATE SCHEDULE— 1947

SHEARING DEPARTM ENT:
Working- Foreman— 1st Class ...............................................  $1.04%

—2nd Class ...........................................................................98
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................92



306

Coper 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6— Operator ............................................72%
—Helper ................................................................................. 70%

Shear 1, 2, 4 and, 5— O perator......................................................72%
— Helper ..... .................................. -...................... -................70%

PRESSING D EPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................... ...............  $1.04%

— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 98
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................92

Large Press'— Operator ................................................. -................ 73
— 1st Helper ________ ________-.................................. - .71%
— 2nd Helper ..... .................-.............. - ...............-...........71%
—3rd Helper ........................................................................70%
— 4th Helper ...........................  70%

Lever Boy ..............................................................................  56%
Small Press,— Operator ....................... ... ...............................- -73

— 1st Helper ........................—................-.............................71%
— 2nd Helper ........................    -70%

Lever Boy .......................................................................... -..............56%
PUNCHING DEPARTM ENT:

Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............................................  $1.04%
— 2nd Class ........................................................................98
— 3rd Class ........................................................................92

Punch 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19— O perator...... . .72%
— Helper ................................................................................. 70%

Punch 3, 4 and 10— Operator ...... ................................................. 73
—-Helper ................................................................................. 71%

Punch 12— Operator .......................................................................76
— 1st Helper ............................................ -....................  .71%
— 2nd Helper  .................................-................... -................ 70%

Machine Cleaner ...... ..................... .—......-....................... -......- .68%
Markers ..............................................................................................72%
Die Setters— 1st Class ..................................................................... 84

— 2nd Class ............................... 79%
CONSTRUCTION & ERECTION DEPARTMENT :

Working Foreman— 1st Class-............................... - ........—  $1.04%
— 2nd Class  ................................................. —-....................98
—3rd C lass..............................................................................92

Inspector ..............................................................................................86%
Steel Chaser ......................................................................................84
Riveters ........................................................................................76-.84
Buckers .......................................................................................... 75-.77
Reamers .............. ...........................................-.......................... - -74
Fitters ....................................................... -........................... -............74
Heaters— 1st Class .............................................-........... -................ 69%

— 2nd Class..................      -61



307

— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 58%
Sticker— 1st C lass..............................-..............................................69%

— 2nd Class..............................................................................61
— 3rd C lass.................................................-........................... 56%

Chippers ..................-......-.........-............................-............................76
TRUCK DEPARTM ENT:

Working Foreman— 1st Class ...... ........................................  $1.04%
— 2nd Class ...................................... .................................... 98
— 3rd Class ........................................................................... 92

Dopers—1st Class  ............................. ......-.......... -........................... 79%
—2nd Class.........     74

F itte rs ......... ...............................................................-........................ 74
Helpers ........................................................................................- .70%

WHEEL & AXLE DEPARTMENT :
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............  - $1.04%

— 2nd Class ...........................................  - -98
— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 92

Axle T urners...............................................................................72-.86
Wheel R ollers................................................  70%
Tool Grinders ............................................................................  -84
Boring Mill Operator ..... ........................................................ 73-.85

WOOD ERECTION DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class .............~................................ $1.04%

— 2nd Class. .............................. -........................................... 98
— 3rd Class ............................................................................. 92

Carpenters.— 1st Class ..................................................................... 88
— 2nd Class, Bldg. T rack .................................................... 73
— Helpers ...............................  71%

PAINT DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............................................  $1.04%

-—2nd Class ............................................................ -............. 98
— 3rd Class ............................................  92

Painters. ........................................................................................76-.84
Paint Mixers.—1st Class .......................... -.............................. -84

— 2nd Class............................................................................. 78
Sprayers ................................................   .70-.82

MACHINE SH OP:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............................................... $1.04%

— 2nd Class........................................-.................... -..............98
— 3rd C lass............................................................................. 92

Machinists;— 1st Class .............................................................  -93%
— 2nd Class ........................................................... -..............90
— 3rd Class ........................................................................... 86
— 4th Class ............................................................................. 76



Drill Handle and Operators ........
Repairmen— 1st Class ...................

— 2nd Class .........................
— 3rd Class ...........................

Blacksmith ........................................
Blacksmith’s Helper .......................
Tool Room Attendant ...................

FORGE DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ___

— 2nd Class...........................
—3rd C lass...........................

Ajax No. 1— Operator ...................
— Helper ...............................

Ajax No. 2.— O perator...................
— Helper ...............................

A jax NO'. 3— Operator ...................
— Helper ...............................

Drill No. 1 and 2— Operator ......
Drill No. 3— Operator ...................

—Helper ...............................
Drill No. 4—Operator ...................
Drill No. 5— Operator ...................
Bulldozer No. 1 and 2— Operator

— Helper ...............................
Bulldozer No. 3— Operator ...........
Bulldozer No. 4— Operator ...........
Shear No. 1 and 2— Operator .......
Shear No*. 3— Operator .................
Eye Bender— Operator .................
Markers ...................... .....................
Hammer No. 1— Blacksmith ........

— Helper ...............................
Hammer No. 2— Operator ............

— Blacksmith .... ............. .
—1st Helper .......................
— 2nd Helper .......................

Hammer No. 4— O perator............
— Helper ...............................

Hammer No. 5— Operator ............
— Helper .............................

Hammer No>. 6— O perator............
— Helper ...............................

Hammer No. 7— Operator ............
— Helper ...............................

Hammer No. 8— Operator ....... ....
— Helper .......................... .

Punch No. 6— Operator ..... .......

.73

.82

.80

.76
•93%
.71%
.79%

$1.04%
.98
.92
.76
.71%
.73
•71%
.76
.71%
.73
.73
.70%
.73
.73
.76
•71%
.73
.73
.72%
•72%
.73
•72%
.84
.71%
.73
.90
•71%
.71%
.76
•71%
.76
•71%
.76
.71%
.76
.71%
.73
•71%
•72%



Punch No. ft— O perator................................................................... 72%
Punch No. 39— Operator ................................................................. 72%
Blacksmith— 1st Class ..................................................................... 93%

— 2nd Class..............................................................................90
—3rd C lass.......................................................   -84
— Helper .............................................   71%
— Fireman ......................   71%
— Stockchaser..................................................................  .76

Grinders— Operator ..................................   73
Butt Welder— Operator .....   .76

— Helper ..................................................................................71%
CARPENTERS & CONSTRUCTION M E N :

Working Foreman— 1st C lass.................................................  $1.04%
— 2nd Class..............................................................................98
— 3rd C lass..............................................................................92

Janitor ................................................................................................ 69%
Carpenters—1st Class .............................................................. .83

— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 79%
PATTERN DEPARTM ENT:

Pattern Makers— 1st C lass.............................................................93%
— 2nd Class...... ....................  90
—-3rd Class ...................................................................- .86

MILLWRIGHT DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class .................................................  $1.04%

—2nd Class .............................. ....................................- .98
— 3rd C lass..............................................................................92

Millwrights'— 1st Class ......................................  86%
—2nd Class............................................  81
— 3rd Class............................................................................. 79
— 4th C lass..............................................................  76

Sprinkler Attendant ......................................................................... 76

FURNACE M E N :
Furnace Repairman— 1st Class ...................  82

— 2nd Class ..........................................   .77%
— Helpers ............................................................................... 73

ELECTRICAL DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass.................................................  $1.04%

— 2nd Class..................................................... ....................... 98
—3rd C lass............................................................................. 92

Winders— 1st Class ........................................................................93%
— 2nd Class ...........................................................................90
— 3rd Class ...........................................................................86

Repairman— 1st Class .......................   -93%
— 2nd Class ..................................................... -.................... 90



310

— 3rd Class ....................................
— 4th Class ..................... -.............
— 5th Class ......................................

Crane Operator— 1st Class .....................
— 2nd Class ....... ..................... - 

ELECTRIC & ACETYLENE WELDING
DEPARTM ENT:

Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............
— 2nd Class ....................................
— 3rd Class ....................................

Welders— 1st Class ........ ................... -......
— 2nd Class ....................................
— 3rd C lass............................ .........
—Helpers .......................- ...............

SHOP LABOR:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass.......... —

— 2nd Class......................................
— 3rd C lass.....................................

Head Fireman— 1st Class  ............. —
Hookon— 1st Class ..................... -........... ■

— 2nd Class.....................................
Firemen .................-.....-......-.......-.............
Transfer Man ...........................................
Laborers .....................................................
Leader on Bolt Table ............................

PNEUMATIC TOOL ROOM:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ................

— 2nd Class ..... .............................
— 3rd C lass.....................................

Tool Repairs— 1st C lass..........................
— 2nd Class ........ ..........................
— 3rd Class .....................................
— 4th Class......................................
— Attendant ....................... -..........

PLANING MILL:
Working Foreman— 1st C lass................

— 2nd Class ......... ........................
—3rd C lass...... ..............................

Planer W -l— Operator ............................
— Helper ............ ........... .................

Gainer and Borer— Operator.................
— Helper ........................................

Swing Cut-off Saw W-10— Operator ...
— Helper ........................................

Motiser-Vertical— Operator .................

.86

.81

.76

.79%

.76

$i.04y2
.98
.92
.90
.84
.76
•70y2

$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.76
.76
.73
.711/2
.76
.691/2
.76

$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.84
.83
.791/2
.76
.691/2

$1,041/2
.98
.92
.74
.701/2
.74
.701/2
.74
.701/2
.74



311
Shaper W-20— Operator .......................
Auto-Cut-Off Saw W-24— O perator....
Matcher W-32— Operator.......................

— 1st H elper.................................
— 2nd Helper ...... ........................

Sizor W -l— Operator  ................- 
— 1st H elper.................................
— 2nd Helper ...............................

Tool Dresser— 1st Class .......................
— 2nd Class .................................
— Helpers ......................................

AIR & EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ............

— 2nd Class................ - -..........
-—3rd C lass...................................

Pipe Fitters ........... -........-......—...............
GALVANIZING DEPARTM ENT:

Working Foreman— 1st Class ............
-—2nd Class.................. -................
— 3rd Class...................................
•—Kettle Operator— 1st Class ...
— 2nd Class .......................... -........

Acid Men— 1st Class .............................
— 2nd Class -------------  -........

Helpers— 1st Class .................................
— 2nd Class ........................-........

SAND BLAST DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman;— 1st Class, ............

— 2nd Class..................................
— 3rd Class ................................
— Operators ................................
— Helpers ..........—.......................
— Repairmen ...............................
— Oilers .............................. -.......

TINSMITH DEPARTM ENT:
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...........

— 2nd Class......... .......- ...............
— 3rd Class..................................

Tinsmith— 1st Class ............................
— 2nd Class ................................

Helpers— 1st Class ................................
— 2nd Class .............- ...... - ........
-—3rd C lass....... ,.........................

WOODEN CAR STORE ROOM:
Working Foreman .............. ..................

.74

.74

.74

.7oy2

.701/z

.74
■70y2
•701/a
.931/2
.90
.701/a

$ 1,041/2
.98
.92
.76

$ 1,043/2
.98
.92
.85
.82
.801/2
.781/2
.771/2
.75

$ 1 ,041/2
.98
.92
.791/2
.76
.90
.791/2

$1,041/2
.98
.92
.831/2
.81
.76
.72
.711/2

.791/2



312
Attendant ......................................................... ——........................... 68%
General Stores— Foreman Casting Yard ....................................79%

— Checkers 1st Class ...........................................................73%
2nd Class ........................................-..............................71

— Attendant .............-.............................................................69%
— Truck D r iv er .....................................................  .69%-.76

STEEL Y A R D :
Working Foreman— 1st Class .............................................. - $1.04%

— 2nd Class..............................................................................98
— 3rd Class  .......................................................-........... -92
— Hookon 1st Class ........ — ...........................-.................. 76

2nd Class ..........................................................................73

LUMBER Y A R D :
Working Foreman— 1st Class ...............................................  $1.04%

— 2nd Class ......................................... -.................................98
— 3rd Class .................... .........................................................92

Lumber Sorter  ........................................................................ -76
Dry Kiln Attendant ......................................................................... 76
Checker— 1st Class ......................................................................... 73%

— 2nd Class ........................................................................... 71
Inspector (Road) ..............................................................per day 8.03

POWER HOUSE:
Boiler Operator ................................................................................. 80
Mill Operator ..................... ............................................... .............. 76
Firemen ................,........................ ................................................... 76
Boiler Cleaner ................... ................................................................76
Ashmen ............................................................................ -.................. 70%
Engineer Operator ......... ....................... .................................- .86%
Pump Operator ................................................................................. 76
Engineer Operator (Old Unit) ..........   78%
Oiler .................................................................................................... 69%
Repairmen ..........................................................................................86%
Clerk ..............................................................................................73-.76

LOCOMOTIVE & YARD CRANE :
Clerk .....................................................................................................89%
Locomotive Engineer   ........................................................ - .86
Crane Operator— 1st Class .............................................................86%

— 2nd Class............................................................................. 78%
Brakemen ............................................................................................76
Firemen ..... ................................................. ......................................76
Night Watchmen and Firemen .................................................... 76
Leading Brakeman (Night) .......................................................... 82

TRACK CONSTRUCTION & REPAIRM EN :
Trackmen ............................................................................................71%
Labor  ....................................................................................—- .69%



313

C O M P A N Y  E X . 16

NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD 

#111-2416-D

I n  t h e  M a t t e r  op 
T h e  P u l l m a n  St a n d a r d  Ca r  

M a n u f a c t u r in g  C o m p a n y

a n d

U n it e d  S t e e l w o r k e r s  o p  A m e r ic a , C IO  
F or  a n d  o n  B e h a l f  of  L o c a l  1466

REPLY OF PULLMAN STANDARD CAR MANU­
FACTURING COMPANY TO BRIEF FILED BY
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA CIO

There are a number of statements in the Union brief 
that are inadvertent and might properly be corrected, 
but may be passed by as immaterial or can be corrected 
at the hearing.

The following comment is limited to certain statements 
or arguments in the brief which seem clearly in error: 

■* * * *
8. The CIO brief (page 6, etc.) undertakes to give 

the impression that this plant is discriminating against 
the negro, or operating under some sort of North-South 
differential. It is obvious that no such vague and un­
limited inquiry or charge is involved in this matter. Not 
a single fact is suggested in the CIO brief to justify 
the contention that it is involved. The suggestion is so 
lacking in any foundation in fact that the Company is 
not willing to treat it as an issue. There is probably 
not a colored worker at this plant who would not ex­
press his belief in the considerate treatment of the ne­
groes at the Pullman plant. This shop is primarily a



314

piece shop work. Earnings reflect the amount of effort 
put forth. There are many instances in which good 
colored workers show higher earnings than the white 
workers. On the other hand, the records show instances 
in which the white workers on machines usually operated 
by colored workers, doing the same work at the same 
rate, have substantially exceeded the earnings of the 
colored worker. There is nothing to justify the implied 
suggestion that as to white or colored employees they 
should be forced to an arbitrary dead level of earnings 
without respect to the effort put forth.

* * *
12. As to Union security and check-off. The Com­

pany denies point blank the statement that the Com­
pany’s tactics in negotiations have created dissatisfac­
tion among the union members and that its anti-labor 
history justifies the necessity for union security now. 
It is to be doubted if there is a plant in the South in 
which there is less justification for either statement. 
There is not a pending or unsettled grievance between 
the Company and any Union represented in this plant. 
There has never been a grievance that was not promptly 
considered and disposed of.

The sole questions open for discussion are those re­
lating to the proposed new contracts. The statement of 
the brief that there are three Unions in the plant and 
that Union security is essential to prevent conflict is not 
even remotely justified by the facts. We have pointed 
out that the bargaining units were established by over­
whelming majorities at elections held for the purpose. 
There has never been any complaint of encroachment 
or any jurisdictional controversy or any effort of any one 
of the Unions or any outside union to supersede any 
existing union.

The existence of three unions in the plant is not only 
not an argument for compulsory union maintenance. It



315

is, in this particular plant, an argument against freezing 
personnel for the duration of their employment in any 
particular union, since union maintenance would tend to 
complicate the transfer of workers from one job to an­
other, for which they are fitted, when such change is 
required by the work offered to the plant or during pe­
riods between full line production. This transfer has 
been of definite benefit to the men in the past and the 
Company does not want to be tied down by an arbitrary 
agreement that would prohibit that necessary elasticity. 
These men in the different unions work in many instances 
side by side and without friction. If the Company has 
to reverse their tasks or the handling of their jobs, in a 
manner wholly satisfactory to the men, it does not want 
to be limited by an arbitrary provision in a labor con­
tract against that reasonable or necessary action, freez­
ing them on a particular union.

The intimation of the brief (page 9) that the negro 
workers are subject to coercion and intimidation by the 
Company, and the unwarranted reference in the CIO 
brief to the Company’s employment manager call for no 
answer except the statement that they are too unfounded 
and too irresponsible to merit any attention except the 
statement that they are untrue and irresponsible. This 
Company has never at any time coerced or intimidated 
any negro or other employee into or out of any Union 
or subjected any negro to unkind or inconsiderate treat­
ment. The proportion of negro employees is not 70%. As 
pointed out above, the work in this plant is so inter­
mingled or interchangeable that the Company could not 
“discriminate” substantially against Negro employees 
without “ discriminating” against its white employees. 
No one ever heard of alleged “negro-white” discrimina­
tion at this plant until CIO’s representative indulged in 
that suggestion first in Washington before the War 
Labor Board in 1941 (resulting in a hearing and com­
plete vindication of the Company) and again at the 
time of the negotiation of the contract in 1942, when the



316

alleged mistreatment of negroes was one of the argu­
ments for a wage increase before the War Labor Board 
panel. No evidence of any such discrimination was 
tendered and both the union and the War Labor Board 
panel approved the present contract and wage scale. 
The repetition of the argument as a basis for further 
wage increase and also for union maintenance is there­
fore nothing more than “ the same old monk and the 
same old saddle-bags” ; nothing new, nothing pertinent, 
nothing accurate.

The fact of the matter is that the only coercion of 
negro workers proposed at the plant is the Union’s pro­
posal to freeze them into the Union and require that they 
be fired on demand by the Union if they fail to pay 
their dues. If the negroes are not members or not pay­
ing dues, the effect of the provision would be to coerce 
them. The Company does not know whether they are 
paying dues or not. If they are not, the compulsion 
would tend to drive them out of the employment. If they 
are, there is no necessity for the compulsion.

There is no necessity for it in any event. Whatever 
the present status is, without compulsion, it is having no 
adverse effect on employment at the plant or upon es­
sential production. There are obvious respects in which 
if required it might in this particular plant have an 
adverse effect.

The requirement of compulsory union maintenance 
would throw an arbitrary factor into the problem of 
employment, which is greatly complicated by the labor 
freeze order of the government.

* * * *



317

COMPANY EX. 18

[SENIORITY LIST OF PULLMAN’S BUTLER,
PA. PLANT AS OF EARLY 1956]

SHEAR DEPARTMENT
* * *

PRESS DEPARTMENT 
* * * *

PUNCH DEPARTMENT
* * * *

FABRICATION DEPARTMENT 
* * * <

CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT
* * * *

TRANSPORTATION & MATERIAL STORAGE
* * * *

ERECTION DEPARTMENT
*  *  *  *

TRUCK AND AXLE DEPT.
* * * *

WOOD CAR PLANING MILL 
* * * *

WOOD CAR ERECTION 
* * * *

LABOR DEPARTMENT
The following workers in the department will be found 

on the Unskilled List. Figures are to be used on Un­
skilled only.

Mill Janitors 
* * * *



318

Main Office Janitors 
* * * *

Shop Laborers 
* # * *

PAINT & EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 
* * * *

SHIPPING DEPARTMENT
* * * *

STEEL CAR STORES DEPARTMENT
* * * *

WELDING INSPECTORS
* * * *

GENERAL STORE ROOM
* * * *

BOLT & RIVET STORES
* * * *

COMMERCIAL FORCE DEPARTMENT
* * * *

STORES & TRANSPORTATION 
RAILROAD DEPARTMENT

* * * *
DIE AND TOOL DEPARTMENT

* * * *
MACHINE REPAIR

* * * *
BLACKSMITH DEPARTMENT

* * * *
TOOL ROOM

* * * #
WELDING DEPARTMENT 

** *



319

PATTERN DEPARTMENT 
* * * #

CARPENTER DEPARTMENT 
* * * *

POWER DEPARTMENT 
* * * *

MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT 
* * *

ELECTRICAL & CRANES 
* * * *

ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT
* «• «* *

FOUNDRY 
* * *• *



320

COMPANY EX. 23

SELECTED LABOR ARBITRATION 
CASES AND TEXTS

R e l a t in g  to  t h e  R a t io n a l  B a s is  fo r  D e p a r t m e n t a l  
Se n io r it y  Sy s t e m s  a s  O ppo sed  to  

P l a n t w id e  Se n io r it y

SELECTED LABOR ARBITRATION CASES AND TEXTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Benrus Watch Co., 2 LA 61 (1946) (Maxwell
Copelof) ....... .................................... -......... - .........

2. General Television & Radio Corp., 2 LA 483 (1942)
(Whitley-P. McCoy)  .................. .............- ........

3. Republic Steel Corp., 2 LA 563 (1944) (Whitley P.
McCoy) .......... ...... ....... ........................ .......... .......

4. Santa Clara County & Central California Meat
Processor’s Ass’n, 36 LA 42 (1961) (Hubert 
Wyckoff) ................................................ — .........

5. Rayonier, Inc., 62-2 ARB If 8458 (A. R. Marshall)..
6. Petro-Tex Chemical Co., 77-1 ARB U 8150 (Claude

B. Lilly) ____________ __________________ ____
7. Clarence M. Updegraff, Arbitration and Labor Re­

lations (3d Ed.,) pp. 303-305 ........... ~...............



321

SUMMARY

THE RATONAL BASIS FOR DEPARTMENTAL SEN­
IORITY SYSTEMS AS OPPOSED TO PLANTWIDE 
APPLICATION OF SENIORITY: AS VIEWED BY 
LABOR ARBITRATORS AND STATISTICIANS (A 
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PRINCIPLES EX­
PRESSED IN SELECTED ARBITRATION CASES 
AND TEXTS IN THIS VOLUME AND BUREAU 
OF LABOR STATISTICS BULLETINS 1425 SE­
RIES)

Labor arbitrators have, over the past 30 years, evolved 
a body of principles in interpreting and applying senior­
ity provisions in union contracts, filling gaps and omis­
sions in them, and deciding in interest arbitration cases 
what the seniority rules should be in union contracts. A 
representative selection of arbitration cases and texts 
expressing those principles are included in this volume; 
references to them as numbered in the Table of Contents 
herein are indicated by superscript numbers in this sum­
mary.

Likewise Bulletins of the USDL Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics analyzing major collective bargaining agreements 
(1425 series) express certain inductive conclusions about 
the reasons why different types of seniority systems are 
characteristically found associated with various sizes and 
compositions of work forces.

Such principles are properly to be considered in deter­
mining, under the controlling Supreme Court’s decisions, 
whether the seniority system adopted by Pullman-Stand­
ard and the United Steelworkers is bona fide. Those 
decisions establish that what is customary and usual in 
the industry is an important element in determining 
bona Sides. Hence, in addition to studying empirically 
the seniority systems of railroad equipment manufac­



322

turers, an inquiry into the rational basis of different 
seniority systems as articulated by those whose business 
it is to ascertain it, is relevant to ascertaining the bona- 
fides of the Pullman seniority system.

The seniority clause of a collective bargaining agree­
ment is the “ Union’s clause” ; 6 that is, it confers no 
advantage whatsoever upon management. Without it, 
management can layoff, recall, promote, hire or discharge 
governed only by pure self-interest and legal limitations. 
Thus a seniority clause is demanded by the Union, not 
by management; management’s self-interest obviously re­
quires that it minimize the impact of a seniority system 
on efficiency and profitability of the business.

“ For purposes of efficiency and to minimize disrup­
tions, most employers prefer to confine promotions, 
at least initially, within small units and jobs calling 
for identical or closely related skills; most unions 
prefer broader units permitting a wider range of 
promotions.” BLS Bulletin 1425-11, Major Collec­
tive Bargaining Agreements: Seniority in Promo­
tion and Transfer Provisions (1970) 11.
“ The Company’s chief interest in the seniority issue 
is to insure against more years of service being con­
sidered of more importance than skill, ability, ini­
tiative, physical fitness, etc.; its chief interest is the 
question of what units are separate for seniority 
purposes is to insure proved ability to perform the 
very job in question. If those interests of the com­
pany are properly protected, it would appear that 
the [seniority unit] should be a matter primarily 
of what the employees themselves desire.3
“ The interest of the Union in thus protecting . . . 
the members of the bargaining unit . . . come into 
conflict with the management’s desire to have the 
most skilled and knowledgeable employees. . . . ” 8



323

Where the work performed in different departments 
or jobs is distinct and the skills not interchangeable, 
management regards plant wide seniority to be unwork­
able and destructive of efficiency.1 Where prolonged 
training on new jobs is required efficiency must suffer.1

The union characteristically does not like it when a 
senior employee is laid off in one department while 
juniors continue working in others.1 On the other hand, 
it is true that opposite inclinations may be felt both by 
management and employees.

“ (1) Employers may want to extend eligibility to 
other groups if qualified employees are not available 
in the specified unit, and (2) many workers, par­
ticularly those with lesser seniority, support a pro­
motion policy restricting applicants from outside 
units.” BLS Bulletin 1425-11, p. 11.

In layoffs, department employees may resent displace­
ment of one of their number of an outsider. Particu­
larly where a seniority system has been long in effect, 
resistance to change may be strong among employees, 
who fear loss of their vested status or niche in the or­
ganization. Narrow seniority units may also help sup­
port union claims to exclusive work assignment rights.6

Consequently, the balance typically and usually struck 
between these competing interests, is to adopt seniority 
units narrower than plant wide, such as job classifica­
tion, occupational group of classifications, line of pro­
gression, craft, or departmental units, where employees 
or skills are not readily interchangeable without loss of 
efficiency.1'2-6 Where the work force is essentially homo­
geneous, a broader seniority grouping as plant wide, 
company wide or multi-company is more usual.

Geographical separation or even scattering of employ­
ees are not particularly significant in deciding whether 
employees should be grouped together in a seniority unit;



324

interchangeability of skills and impact on efficiency if so 
grouped, are the relevant considerations in deciding a 
dispute over whether a number of employees constitute 
one or two departments, where the contract is not ex­
plicit.3'4 Likewise, in interpreting ambiguous contractual 
provisions involving questions of inter-departmental 
transfers.5

These principles are applied by arbitrators in resolv­
ing the uncertainty in a union contract when it fails—

. to indicate clearly whether the seniority 
shall be plant-wide or on a departmental or job 
basis. Here the character of the business may fur­
nish a determining index. If there are several jobs 
involving greatly varying skills in a situation where 
there is great likelihood that people of one skill may 
be needed at times when others are not, the conclu­
sion that the seniority was intended to be on a de­
partmental or skill classification basis may be justi­
fied. On the contrary, if there is virtually no work 
usually classified as skilled within the plant, the 
conclusion may well be that seniority should be rec­
ognized on a plant-wide basis. [If the agreement is 
not clear] the nature of the business and past prac­
tice may be the guiding lights.”  7

Over half of the major collective bargaining agree­
ments, and over half the employees, covered in the BLS 
study of “ Seniority in Promotion and Transfer Provi­
sions,” Bulletin No. 1425-11 (1970) had departmental 
or more restrictive seniority units (Ibidem, p. 12).



325

COMPANY EX. 24

PERTINENT EXCERPTS RELATING TO DEPART­
MENTAL SENIORITY SYSTEMS— FROM SELECT­
ED ARTICLES IN MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BU­
REAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, 1938-1955 * * *

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT EXCERPTS RELAT­
ING TO DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY SYSTEMS, 
SELECTED ARTICLES IN MONTHLY LABOR RE­
VIEW, USDL, 1938-1955

The study entitled “ Seniority Provisions in Collective 
Agreements” , Monthly Labor Review, December, 1938, 
120, 1252-53, observed that plant wide seniority systems 
were “ most prevalent in shops in which all employees 
follow the same craft or in plants where the jobs are 
more or less interchangeable.” It further pointed out 
that—

“ In larger establishments where operations are 
more varied, it is common to establish separate lists 
on departmental lines or according to job specifica­
tions. Thus, only workers doing the same type of 
work, or engaged in the same industrial processes, 
are considered to be in competition when jobs are 
filled or promotions made. This form of seniority 
limits the workers to be considered to those most 
likely to be fitted for the jobs involved.”

Thus the variables associated with departmental seniority 
systems were large size and non-interchangeable skills. 
Small plants and ones with work forces having similar 
skills were more likely to have plant-wide seniority 
systems.

The Study of “ Workers’ Attitudes on Work Sharing 
and Lay-Off Policies in a Manufacturing Firm,”  Monthly 
Labor Review, January, 1939, 47, 49, pointed out that



departmental seniority systems were favored sometimes 
by employee attitudes of resentment of an outsider’s dis­
placing or bumping an employee in a given department.

The study of “ Collective Bargaining by United Rub­
ber Workers,” Monthly Labor Review, September, 1939, 
604, 612-13, based on 54 Rubber Workers contracts in 
11 states, found that:

“ In a majority of the agreements, including those 
covering all of the larger companies, departmental 
seniority is the determining factor in selecting em­
ployees for transfer, promotion, lay-offs, and rehire.”

The study of “Union Agreements in Aircraft Manu­
facture,” Monthly Labor Review, August, 1940, 290, 295- 
96, based on 12 contracts filed with the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics found:

“Eleven of the twelve agreements contain seniority 
provisions. Six of them provide for seniority on a 
departmental basis, while three establish plant-wide 
seniority and one, seniority within job classifica­
tions.”

The study of “Union Agreements in Shipbuilding,”  
Monthly Labor Review, September, 1940, 597, 605-06, 
based on 28 contracts filed with the BLS, found:

“All of the agreements, except seven signed by 
craft unions [which presumably operated hiring halls 
or referral systems typical of such unions], give some 
recognition to seniority. In all cases seniority is on 
an occupational or departmental basis.”

The article entitled “ Contract Clauses on Seniority as 
a Factor in Layoffs,” 78 Monthly Labor Review 766, 
767-69 (July, 1955) says in pertinent part:

“ The seniority unit within which employees are 
ranked in order of retention is generally determined 
by the requirements of plant operation. A broad sen­

326



327

iority basis, e.g., plantwide, may be deemed appropri­
ate where occupations within the plant are fairly 
uniform or are readily learned. Where a wide range 
of operations and skills is required to manufacture 
a product, the workers who compose a single produc­
tion line, a department, or a job classification may 
be grouped in a seniority unit.”

In short, official government studies show that through­
out the period of formation of the Pullman-Steelworkers 
seniority system, similar systems were prevalent in in­
dustries of comparable size and variety of skills, through­
out the country, including the rubber industry, aircraft 
manufacture, and shipbuilding. They also show that the 
larger the plant and the more varied the requisite skills, 
the more prevalent it was for departmental or narrower 
(occupational or job classification, craft or line of pro­
gression) seniority units to be agreed to; and that the 
type of system was “ generally determined by the require­
ments of plant operation.”



328

I N D E X
Page

“Seniority Provisions in Collective Agreements*’, MLR
December, 1938, 1250 ------ ------------------------ ----------  1

“Workers’ Attitudes in Work Sharing and Lay-Off 
Policies in a Manufacturing Firm” , MLR, January,
1939, 47 .............................. - ................... .......... ........  12

“Collective Bargaining by United Rubber Workers” ,
MLR, September, 1939, 604 .......... ..........................  15

“Union Agreements in Aircraft Manufacture” , MLR, 
August, 1940, 290 ______________ ____ __________ 19

“Union Agreements in Shipbuilding” , MLR, Septem­
ber, 1940, 597 ......................................... ...... ............. 22

“ Contract Clauses on Seniority as a Factor in Layoffs” ,
78 MLR 766 (July, 1955) ....................... ........ .........  27



329

COMPANY EX. 25

MASTER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN

A m e r ic a n  Ca r  a n d  F o u n d r y  D iv isio n  
ACF I n d u s t r ie s , I n c o r p o r a t e d

a n d

U n it e d  S t e e l w o r k e r s  of  A m e r ic a

November 4, 1965
WITH

S t . C h a r l e s  P l a n t  S u p p l e m e n t  

ST. CHARLES PLANT 

EXHIBIT “A”
Department No. Department Name

102 Shear and Punch
103 Underframe
104 Steel Assembly
105 Steel Erection
106 Welding
107 Wheel and Axle
108 Iron Machine Shop
109 Blacksmith
110 Pulpwood Car Assembly
112 Steel Cabinet
118 Cabinet Mill
114 Sheet Metal
115 Coach Erection
116 Passenger Electric
117 Pipe
118 Finish
119 Paint
120 Trimming
121 Upholstering



330

122
131
140
141
142 
144 
148 
152 
154
156
157 
162 
219 
502
504
505 
514 
516 
519 
561

Wood Cabinet 
Template and Pattern 
Machine Maintenance 
Building’s and Yard 
Shop Electric 
Power Plant 
Building Service 
Finish Stores 
Raw Stores
Tool and Parts Control 
Material Transport 
Loft
Resident-Maintenance
Aircraft Machine and Fabrication
Aircraft Tooling
Aircraft Assembly
Heat Treat and Hand Form
Aircraft Electrical
Anodize and Paint
Inspection



SUM MARY OF SEN IORITY PROVISION S IN  A L L  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEM ENTS 
ON FILE W ITH  UNITED STATES D EPARTM EN T OF LABOR, BUREAU  OF LABOR STATISTICS 

IN  INDUSTRIES IN  STANDARD IN DU STRIAL CLASSIFICATION  GROUP NO. 374 (RAILRO AD  EQUIPM ENT)
(E XC E P T  PU LLM AN -STAN DARD )

Employer Location Union Dates Brief Description o f Seniority System

Evans Products Co. Plymouth, Mich. USW 9 /1 /6 5 HYBRID OF P LA N T, CLASSIFICATION AND 
D EPARTM EN T SEN IORITY *

ACF Hamilton, W . Y a.) 
Milton, Pa. ) 
St. Charles, Mo. )

USW 11/4/65 D EPARTM EN TAL OR BY UNITS TH EREOF

GATX East Chicago, 111.)
Plants 1 and 2 ) 

Sharon, Pa. ) 
Argentine, Kans. ) 
West Colton, CA ) 
Hearne, Texas ) 
W ay cross, Ga. )

USW 9/15 /71 DEPARTM EN T OR BY UNITS TH EREOF

Youngstown Steel Door Co. Youngstown, Ohio USW 10/1/71 D E PARTM EN TAL
ACF East St. Louis, 111.) 

Milton, Pa. ) 
Red House, W. V a.)

USW 3/5 /7 2
PL A N T  W IDE IN  LAYO FFS AND RECALLS, Provided 
Employee has ability to do the work. P L A N T  W IDE IN 
FILLIN G VACANCIES, Provided Employee can qualify 
in the new Classification during a 30-day trial period, 
during which he is paid at his old rate.

Westinghouse A ir Brake 
Division, Office & 
Technical Employees

Wilmerding, Pa. Independent 11/1/72 “ SECTION”  or “ PA Y R O L L  N UM BER”  (evidently 
means Occupational or Classification Basis)

Westinghouse A ir Brake 
Division, P  & M

Wilmerding, Pa. UE Local 610 11/1 /72 “ SECTION”  (evidently means departmental or subunit 
thereof)

New York A ir Brake Co. Watertown, N Y. Molders Local 78 2/14 /73 DEPA RTM EN TA L
Greenville Steel Car Co. Greenville, Pa. U AW  Local 1653 4/19 /73 DEPARTM EN TAL
Winder Transportation 
Systems, Inc.

W inder, Ga. IAM  Lodge 2 5 /1 /7 4 OCCUPATIONAL—-Departmental preference in 
promotions

* Plant-Wide seniority for  10 designated “ Basic Jobs” , i.e„ unskilled. All vacancies in “ Non-Basic”  (semi-skilled and skilled) jobs filled first by 
employees having certain minimum experience in those jobs. Where such experienced employees not available, departmental seniority applies 
in filling temporary (2 weeks or less) vacancies in Non-Basic jobs and in filling permanent vacancies in Non-Basic jobs plant-wide seniority 
applies provided senior bidder can do the available work in the classification, as demonstrated by a 5-day trial period— which is not a training 
period.

CO
M

PAN
Y EX. 26—

FIRST D
O

CU
M

EN
T



332

COMPANY EX. 26—SECOND DOCUMENT

AGREEMENT
BETWEEN

EVANS PRODUCTS COMPANY
AND

UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA

September 1, 1965 
* * * *

Section 4. There shall be one (1) Steward for each 
shift in the following departments except as otherwise 
indicated:

Dept. 10— Machine Shop.
Dept. 21— Loading Equipment— Two (2) Stewards.
Dept. 21— Car Building & Installation—-Two (2) 

Stewards.
Dept. 29 and 30 combined— Shears and Press Room. 
Dept. 31— Spot Welding.
Dept. 32— Paint.
Dept. 33— Final Assembly.
Dept. 40— Tool Room.
Dept. 41-1— Receiving.

Dept. 41-2— Stock Room— Two (2) Stewards (one 
Steward from among employees working 
indoors and the other from among em­
ployees working outdoors).

Dept. 41-3— Lift Truck Operations.
Dept. 42— Inspection.



333
Dept. 45— Shipping.
Dept. 46 and 195— combined.
Dept. 48— Maintenance— Two (2) Stewards (one 

from among General Maintenance and the 
other from among Sweepers and General 
Workers).

Dept. 49— Tool Crib.
Dept. 66— Experimental.



334

COMPANY EX. 26—THIRD DOCUMENT

AGREEMENT
BETWEEN

GREENVILLE STEEL CAR COMPANY 
AND

THE INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND 
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS 

OF AMERICA

Local Union No. 1653

Greenville, Pennsylvania

April 19, 1973 
To

April 19, 1976

[UNION BUG]
* * * *

Section 12
a. The following is a list of the separate departmental 

seniority rosters. An employee’s departmental sen­
iority shall be based upon his length of continuous 
service within a recognized department:

(1) Wheel, Axle and Truck Shop
(2) Crane Operators
(3) Electrical Maintenance
(4) Erection Shop
(5) Forge Shop



335

(6) Hook-on
(7) Tool & Die Department
(8) Die Yard
(9) Mechanical, Tool Room and Power House (Mill­

wrights)
(10) Paint Department
(11) Pattern and Template Shop
(12) Pipe Department
(13) Fabrication Department
(14) Stores Department
(15) Switching
(16) Property Department
(17) Plant Janitors



DEPARTMENTS BARGAINING UNITS, AND SENIORITY SYSTEMS AT PULLMAN BESSEMER PLANT, 
1941 -PRESENT. COMPANY DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 27.

V e tia g  L io t  F l i i i  U n in  [AM IBEW Secerb- J « * e l,  >41 M a r .1, ’4 ?  t W l / 4 9  J « « .  I ,  ’fO  f t b . l / S i  I ,  'J X  J m . e l / 5 3  J u n e  1/ 5 +  S e p t . t / 5 4  H  P f e j t « t
I 9 4 t  Cahtraefs *4 2 , C e r t '*  J u n '44 '4 4

- Hooje<D‘

W elling 0 A M )- W eMUg 0»)

W f c A O A M ) - W * A  CD) 

A BPS C IA M )-A 5 P S C D )

M * in t  CO)

Ruin*i a»

Steel £V«c6 d (~  Steal E CO)

Vo.l iteomfe)- 
S t« d  C W M tr-S te e l C CO) -  

Paint -------Paint (0 ) —

T  (t>) —

Pi**t fo fca u -p fa t  p Co) —

StefMrfiwtfnlerce- S upcrm t fj>) —

- —  7 * w f  <#ts ( 0)  —  

W « « J  £ < ie t i * n -  W ood E  CO ) —  

S t * r € f  «<—  M « s t S t r r r n ( t ) ) —  

^  T r K /T * * <  t e ­

s t e d  S fo re s C b )-S t t f l  M ( * t

\

1 H l t f r a r m -

1

. . ._______________________________ _ _ /

—

...........  ______________  _ /

>) PI a t P ^ >

P»«*Cr- HoH « C O )“

Mamt (lAM)~ 

OicT  CI AM) -

Welding CO) -
W * A  CD) -

M»lnt ( D ) ------------------
RailroadCD)-- ---------
Bdter HWkCo)
D A T  ( D )  ------------------------

P r« S S  C D )  ---------------------------- -

PSSCD) — .................*
S tee l EC O ) ------------------------

M t u  S t « r « s ( o ) ~

>  T r k / T r » c V ( 0 ) ^

"Z S te e l S tove»(o ) — 'NT
C ^ n e  SerCo) - S t e e l  M is a C O ) -

Steel C. CO)-----
P « t /5 h p 5 T C D )~ —

P lan t P r * t ( 0) -----

Janitors (0)--
Template CO) —

Wood E r ie  CD) —  

Mi*e Stottsto) —
M o h  C<»n< f O ) -----

S t e t i  S to re s 0 > )  —  

S t e e l M i te  ( 0 )  —

lu m b e r  Y a r d  — L u m b  S tbv 'e jC D )------------------------------------------------------------L « m k  S t o * t S ( b )  —--------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------- l u m b e r  Y < j(® )-LM H »b SCwe^CD) '

W o o d  M i l l  —  N W  M i l l  ( D ) ---------------------------------------- ------------- -------- W o o d  M . - I K o ) ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --  W o o d  M . l t f p ) -----------------------------

F o r g e  •-------------F o r g e  ( D )  -----------------------------------------------------------------F o r g e  ( O )  --------------------■:-------------------------------------------- ■— ...........— -  ------------------------------------------------------------------ — ---------------------------------------------- — F o r g e  ( p )  —  -  ----------- —

T -1 -c K  ----- -- T ru c k  ( 0 )  ■—  ----------------- -------------------------  T r u c k  ( o ) ------------------------------------ ---------- --------------------------------------- - ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------  T e u c K  ( D ) --------------------------

K e y : ( E ) *  IBEW B a r jv n it ig  R w it; (1 A M )- I A M  B a V g n ln iw ^  U n i t ;  ( D ) *  U S W  U n it ,  O ff» T tm e n ta l S e n io r i t y ;  ( o ) =  U S W  U n it ,  O ccu p a tio n a l S e n i o r i t y ,



337

DEPOSITIONS INTRODUCED AT 1978 TRIAL 

DEPOSITION OF
JOHNNY JOSEPH MAUTMAN HERRING

[10] Q All right. The contract will show that in 1941, 
the National Labor Relations Board certified bargaining 
unit for the machinists, which included the production 
and maintenance welders.

I believe you came to work there the next year; is 
that correct ?

A That’s right. In 1942.
Q That’s correct.
Now, the contract further shows that on June 14, 1944, 

the machinists union, and the Steelworkers Union, made 
an agreement whereby the welders and certain other em­
ployees who were then in the machinist department would 
become members of the Steelworkers bargaining unit. 
Do you recall that agreement?

A Yeah, but I want to put you straight there.
Q 0. K. Would you tell me about that?
A Now, the time you are talking about, you know, 

we were striking, might not be every month, but some­
times two or three times a day and two or three times 
a month.

Q Now, who was striking at that time?
A We were trying to get organized, get us a [11] 

union.
MR. FALKENBERRY: He is asking you what group

of people you are talking about, Mr. Herring.
A I’m talking about the P and M workers.
Q All right.
A And then when we organized and all, well, then we 

come up here to Birmingham and in the First National 
Bank Building, Pullman owned or had leased one floor 
down there, and Bill Sleeman, he was plant manager, 
and we was all down there. They had been coming across



338

our picket line and the machinists then got down there, 
and we said this, that, and the other, and said, well, we 
are going to take who we want, not what you want to 
give us.

Q Who did you tell it to?
A Told them to the boss that was around the table 

with us. And said, well, what do you want then? We 
told them we would take everyone excusing the mill­
wrights. If you want me to tell you exactly what we 
said, I can tell you.

Q All right. What did you say?
A I said we didn’t want them scabbing son-of-a- 

bitches, they come across our picket line.
[12] Q All right.

A And then we left out of that First National Bank 
and went to the Post Office, and old Judge, Federal 
Judge in there with us, old man Sleeman and Johnson 
was doing a little whispering going on, and old Judge 
told them, said, listen, you whisper out loud because I’m 
the man going to make the decision today, and I want 
to hear what’s going on. And that’s when we took who 
we wanted and give them the rest of them.

* * * *



339

DEPOSITION OF COLON V. CLEMONS 
* * * *

[4] COLON V. CLEMONS,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows :

EXAMINATION BY MM. CLEMON:
Q Mr. Clemon, will you state your full name?
A Colon V. Clemons.
Q And what is your address?
A 3217 Circle Drive, Hueytown.
Q Where are you employed?
A Pullman-Standard, Bessemer.
Q And what is your position at Pullman-Standard?

[5] A Department head, die and tool.
Q That’s the die and tool I AM Department?
A That’s right.
Q How long have you been department head?
A Eight years.
Q How long have you worked in the die and tool 

department?
A Since May of ’41.
Q What was your position before you became head 

of the department ?
A I started off laboring, sweeping the floor, prog­

ressed ot craneman and machinist.
Q All right. Now, Mr. Clemon, when you first came 

into the die and tool department, in May of ’41, there 
was no union, was there?

A That’s right.
Q Did you participate in the organizing effort?
A I joined when they formed the union.
Q All right. Did you join after the union had been 

certified in the latter part of ’41?
A I think so. As I recall, it was September of ’41 

when they formed the union and I joined at that time.



[6] Q Were there any black members in the union 
at that time?

A Not at that time, no, sir. Could have been, I didn’t 
know about it.

Q Did you go to any of the union meetings?
A Yes, I went to one or two meetings.
Q Did you see any blacks there?
A I don’t recall.
Q Do you ever recall seeing any?
A No.
Q Were you familiar with the fact that the truck 

department was initially included in the IAM bargaining 
unit at Pullman?

A No. See, it was formed in September, as I recall, 
and I went off, was laid off April of ’42 and went into 
World War II, and was gone for three and a half years 
and didn’t return until ’46.

Q You say you left in April of ’42?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. There is a letter dated December 19, 

1941. You were in the die and tool department there, 
weren’t you?
[7] A That’s right.

Q There is a letter signed by Mr. Bumgardner. Did 
you know him?

A Yes. Bumgardner, yes, sir. He was business 
agent.

Q Yes. All right. He signed a letter along with 
Representative of the Steelworkers organizing committee, 
which, among other things, transfers the truck shop 
from the IAM unit into the Steelworkers unit. Were 
you familiar with that?

A No, sir.
Q Did you know that at that time the employees 

in the truck shop were black?
A No, I don’t recall that.



341

Q You were familiar with the truck builders, weren’t 
you?

A Yes, sir.
Q They were black?
A Yes, sir.



842

DEPOSITION OF CLYDE A. ROBERTSON
* * * *

[5] CLYDE A. ROBERTSON,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. CLEMON:
Q Mr. Robertson, would you state, for the record, 

your full name?
A Clyde A. Robertson, R-o-b-e-r-t-s-o-n.
Q And you are employed by Pullman-Standard?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what is your position with Pullman-Standard?

[6] A Contract compliance officer.
Q And what does that entail?
A Well, it’s the handling and overseeing of the Civil 

Rights activities, Affirmative Action Program; basically, 
that’s it.

Q O.K. Mr. Robertson, you worked with the lawyers 
for the company in both answering the interrogatories, 
which the plaintiff filed to the company, and in respond­
ing to plaintiff’s request for production, did you not?

A That’s correct.
* * * *

[12] Q All right. Mr. Robertson, in your study of 
company records, in responding to our request for pro­
duction, and in answer to our interrogatories, did you 
come across any documents which reflect any negotia­
tions between the company and the Steelworkers Union, 
with respect to the creation of a separate seniority list 
or department for the boiler house?
[13] A Nothing, no negotiations, no, sir.

Q All right. Is it also true with respect to inspection? 
A Yes, uh huh.



343

Q The janitor’s department?
A Yes.
Q Mobile crane? Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The creation or merger of the shipping track with 

the paint department?
A That’s correct, nothing to show negotiations or 

anything like that.
Q Also true with respect to the plant protection de­

partment?
A That’s correct.
Q And the railroad department?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the steel miscellaneous department?
A Yes.
Q Well, I take that back.
I believe there is one document or maybe two which 

shows that there was agreement between the company 
and the union to create steel miscellaneous [14] depart­
ment out of, or to carve it out of steel storage depart­
ment?

A I think those were—
Q Those were supplied to me?
A Yes.

* * * *
[15] Q All right. Do you recall whether there was 
any negotiations, or have you seen any records reflect­
ing any negotiations with respect to the creation of the 
truck and tractor department in the first place?

A No.
Q Do the records that you have seen indicate what 

disposition was made of the superintendents department?
[16] A No. No records other than the people that 
were in the superintendents department went into other 
departments, like the inspection people that were in 
there became part, later on in later years, part of the



344

inspection department, I can’t recall the other people 
in that department.

# * * *
[20] O.K. You do know that within two months after 
the IAM was certified, with the truck shop included in 
the bargaining unit, that the IAM had arranged with the 
Steelworkers to transfer the truck shop from the IAM 
to the Steelworkers?

A No. I don’t recall that.
Q You don’t recall that?
A No.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. demon, there have been a great

number of documents in this case and would be more 
people that just Mr. Robertson that pulled them. In 
fact, I pulled a number of them myself, so Mr. Robert­
son might not have seen all of the documents and maybe 
other documents, although I’m certainly not saying there 
are any documents of the nature you are suggesting.

Q All right,
A Now, I can’t recall everything that I saw, [21] 

let alone some of it that I may not have seen.

Q And at one time the boiler house, railroad, power 
house employees were all carried on maintenance CIO 
seniority list, were they not?

A That’s correct.
Q And, therefore, under a departmental seniority sys­

tem, employees in the maintenance department, black and 
white alike, would have been able to move up to these 
jobs in power house, boiler house, railroad; is that not 
correct?

A Under a straight departmental seniority system. 
[22] Q Which is what you now have at Pullman?

A Yes, by and large, yes.
Q Now, the effect of creating these new departments 

or cavring out these new departments from maintenance



345

CIO was to create some department into which em­
ployees otherwise eligible to get certain jobs as power 
house operators, would no longer have a right to get 
those jobs; is that not correct?

A You are asking me if that’s what was done to 
take people’s rights away, I don’t know what was done.

Q No. I’m not asking you for the motivation, Mr. 
Robertson; I’m asking you for the effect.

When the power house jobs were taken out of main­
tenance CIO and placed in a separate department, did 
that not mean that some person, and I’m particularly 
interested in the blacks who were in maintenance CIO, 
who might otherwise have been entitled to jobs in the 
power house, no longer had a right to get those jobs?

A Not in the same way had they been in the main­
tenance department.

Q They would have to have transferred to the [23] 
power house in order to—

A Right.
Q And there was no right of transfer. They could 

request it and the company could grant it if it saw fit?
A That’s correct.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. demon, are you speaking now

without reference to the Affirmative Action Agreement?
MR. CLEMON: Right. I’m speaking now about

things a little prior to 1965.



346

Civil Action Number 71-P-0955-S 
Louis S w i n t , et al.,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

P u l l m a n -S t a n d a r d , A Division of Pullman, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 
NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

Come now the plaintiffs in the above cause and move 
this Court, pursuant to Rule 201(b) (d) and (f) of the 
Federal Rules of Evidence, to take judicial notice of the 
following facts:

1. In the case of Terrell, et al. vs. U.S. Pipe and 
Foundry, et al., No. 27-887-P, N.D. Ala., presently pend­
ing before this Court, the defendant International Asso­
ciation of Machinists (“ IAM” ) stated that until 1948, 
the IAM Ritual contained a clause that the [members] 
would propose for membership only “qualified white can­
didates.” See Answers of IAM to Plaintiffs’ Interrog­
atories No. 7, filed March 4, 1974, a certified copy of 
which is attached hereto.

2. In the same case, the defendant International As­
sociation of Machinists stated that its 1940 bargaining 
unit at United States Pipe and Foundry Company’s plant 
located in Bessemer, Alabama, consisted of “ machinists, 
apprentice machinists, toolmen, crane hookers, blacksmith 
shop employees, welders, apprentice welders and welders’ 
helpers.” Id., Answer to Interrogatory No. 1; copy at­
tached hereto.

WHEREFORE, the premises considered, plaintiffs pray 
that the Court will take judicial notice of the said facts.

IN TH E U N ITED  STATES D ISTRICT COURT
FOR TH E N O RTH ERN  D ISTRICT OF A LA B A M A

SOUTH ERN DIVISION



347

Case No. 72-887 

Joseph Terrell, Jr.,
Plaintiff,

v.

United States P ipe & Foundry Company, et al.,
Defendants.

Mar. 4, 1974

DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO 
PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Comes now the defendant, International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and 
Lodge 359 (hereinafter the “ Grand Lodge” or the “ In­
ternational” ) and for Answer to the plaintiff’s Interroga­
tories says as follows:

1. Yes, both are separate labor organizations. The 
I.A.M. was certified as the bargaining representative in 
1940 for “ machinists, apprentice machinists, toolmen, 
crane hookers, blacksmith shop employees, welders, ap­
prentice welders and welder’s helpers.”

2. John R. Tucker (white)
District Lodge Business Agent, I.A.M.
110 West 13th Street
Anniston, Alabama 36201
Represents L.U. at 3rd step of grievance procedure.
Represents L.U. in negotiations.
M. C. Hosmer, President (white)
Route 1, Box 179
McCalla, Alabama 35111

IN TH E U N ITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TH E N O RTH ERN  DISTRICT OF A LA B A M A

SOUTHERN DIVISION



348

7. Neither the Constitution nor the By Laws have 
ever excluded blacks or members of any minority race. 
Prior to 1948 the Ritual did contain a clause stating that 
the applicant would propose for membership only “quali­
fied white candidates.”  This was dropped in 1948. There 
have been no such qualifications since.

8. A. The Ritual of the I.A.M.
B. Unknown. Probably 1888.
C. 1948.

* * *
11. The Local has never refused to accept a black 

employee’s application for membership.
* * * *

(c) Membership has not been limited to whites 
only. No blacks were assigned to the I.A.M. bargaining 
unit until 1969.

* # * *
A true copy of pages 1-3 of Defts’ Answers to Plfts’ 

interrogatories total of 7 pages with exhibits)
J a m e s  E. V a n d e r g r if t  
Clerk
United States District Court 
Northern District of Alabama



349

Civil Action No. 72-887
Joseph Terrell, Jr., Albert Mason, Marcus Oakes, 

Sam Walker, Johnny Long, Thomas Green, Wal­
ter Dudley, each individually and on behalf of all 
other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.

United States Pipe and Foundry Company, a cor­
poration; United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL- 
CIO, an unincorporated association; Local 2140, 
United Steelworkers of A merica, AFL-CIO, an un­
incorporated association; International Molders and 
Allied Workers Union, an unincorporated associa­
tion ; Local 342, International Molders and Allied 
Workers Union, an unincorporated association; Pat­
ternmakers League of North America, AFL, an 
unincorporated association; Patternmakers Associa­
tion of Birmingham, an unincorporated association; 
International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, an unincorporated association; 
Lodge 359, International Association of Machin­
ists and Aerospace Workers, an unincorporated asso­
ciation ; Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Black­
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, an unincorporated 
association; Local 583, Brotherhood of Boilermak­
ers, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, an unin­
corporated association; International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, an unincorporated associa­
tion; Local 136, International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, an unincorporated association,

Defendants.

IN THE U N ITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE N ORTH ERN  DISTRICT OF A LA B A M A

BIRM INGH AM  DIVISION

Dec. 7, 1973



350

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST INTERROGATORIES 
TO DEFENDANT UNIONS

4?- *  *  *

7. State whether the Constitution or By-Laws of the 
International Machinists and Aerospace Workers have 
ever contained provisions excluding persons or limiting 
or qualifying membership on the basis of race or color.

8. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 7 is affirmative, 
state:

(a) The document in which the provision is or was 
contained, its precise location and its custodian;

(b) the date of its original enactment or exercise;
(c) the date of its expiration or repeal, if any;

*  *  *  *

11. State whether Local 359 or any other Local char­
tered by the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers at U.S. Pipe . . . (Interrogatory 
continued on next page of document, but that page is not 
in the record].