« PreviousContinue »
Mr. LUDLOW. This simply restores it to what it was before?
PRINTING AND BINDING
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Why do you need an increase in printing and binding?
Mr. Jones. The increase for printing and binding is requested because of the addition of fiscal functions that we have taken over. When we appeared last year the Division of Central Administrative Services performed all fiscal service for the agency. Now we perform all of them, and of course are required, under the general regulations of the Controller General and of the Treasury Department, to install fiscal procedures that require the purchase of printing and binding materials. We have a large backlog of requests of employers to give to them our best experience in the adjustment of problems that come about through integrating the minority groups. We have handled such requests on a more or less ad hoc basis. The problems are so general and so widespread and the requests are so numerous that we have decided that the best manner of handling them is to give out to the many employers and unions who make requests a pamphlet that presents the best experience for their guidance. We do not have sufficient manpower available to be constantly going back and forth to them to give them aid, and we thought that in such a document we could at least put all the general information and therefore reduce the amount of time we have to spend in direct contact in helping them.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I see you are jumping up the travel item from $63,000 to $71,000.
Mr. Jones. That increase is primarily in connection with the increase in the number of persons who will be required to travel. I might point out that although the amount of $63,800 was available for 1945, we are actually spending considerably less than that about $50,000—because there was just not enough money available to carry the number of persons needed. We found it was cheaper to open an office, even upon a temporary basis, and station an employee there, than to constantly tranport them from the regional headquarters cities to outlying industrial centers and have them remain in those cities at such cost. Each office we have opened bas been opened at a reduction in travel cost. In this manner we have been able to hire critically needed additional personnel. They have been financed out of travel savings. The effectiveness of our work has been seriously affected by limited funds. The backlog of cases and the period of pendency is mounting:
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. On the basis of 141 people that you are re. questing, it figures out about $500 for each employee. I am told that that is the top average for any domestic agency.
Mr. Jones. But, 48 percent of our total staff travels which is also top for domestic agencies. Because of limited funds we concentrate as many people as possible in operating functions.
Mr. Ross. May I interject that the committee itself lives in scattered parts of the country and they have to be transported to meetings, to hearings, and it amounts to a considerable item.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. One other question. Is there any authority at law for the seizure and operation of any plant or other property of a person, firm, or corporation for failure to abide by any rule or regulation of the committee?
Mr. Ross. None.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Mr. Case. Mr. Ross, Executive Order 9346 at one point seems to contemplate the possible transfer of funds to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Have any funds been made available to you by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget without appropriation by the Congress?
Mr. Ross. Not during the past fiscal year. Last year was the first time we appeared before this committee seeking an appropriation. Before that we were financed out of the President's funds.
Mr. Case. Do you anticipate any funds being transferred to you or made available, outside of an appropriation, for the coming fiscal year?
Mr. Ross. No, sir.
Mr. CASE. Do you have any deferments in your personnel?
Mr. Ross. Yes; we have deferments: I am not prepared to say offhand how many. I could furnish you with the number.
Mr. CASE. Will you place in the record the number of deferments you have and the percentage of that figure to your total personnel?
Mr. Ross. Surely.
STATEMENT ON DRAFT DEFERMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1945 The total number of deferments granted the Committee on Fair Employment Practice as of March 31, 1945, is 17. This represents 14 percent of the total employees. The following table shows the total number in each grade classifcation with corresponding titles:
Mr. Case. Where do you find the authority in the Executive order for the fourth of the major activities in the program of activities that you list at page 5 of your statement? The first three are clearly set forth in statements placing an obligation on the committee by the use of the word “shall.” I do not find a specific directive for authority for what you might call information and public relations.
Mr. Ross. Under paragraph 5, to“Conduct hearings, make findings of fact, and take appropriate steps to obtain elimination of such discrimination.” I would consider that an appropriate step, in view of the close relationship between the atmosphere of compliance and the fact of compliance.
ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS OR FINDINGS
Mr. Case. Is enforcement of regulations or findings of the committee subject only t- the enforcement that you can obtain by persuasion or the creation of an atmosphere?
Mr. Ross. The Presidential powers are the last resort. But, as I say, we are very chary of passing on any unsolved cases to the President. We feel an obligation to go as far as we can with them within our own sphere of influence.
Mr. Case. You state in that connection, on page 6, that to obtain compliance the Committee depends uopn its powers of persuasion and the prestige of other Government agencies; and you speak of the farreaching resources of such agencies, and so forth. What do you mean by the far-reaching resources of such agencies?
Mr. Ross. I am speaking of the experience of those agencies, all of whom are equally obligated under the Executive order not to permit any discrimination. This of course is binding on the Civil Service, or contracting agencies--
Mr. Case. Is it binding on relief and rehabilitation organizations? Mr. Ross. No, sir.
Mr. CASE. Do you have or feel any authority to make any suggestions with regard to U. N. R. R. A.?
Mr. Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Case. I raise that question. I might say, in explanation, that when I was called out of the committee room to answer a telephone call this morning, by a peculiar coincidence, the call was by a girl who knows some person employed by the Government who had applied for a position with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization, and after learning her background they intimated that probably she would not be acceptable.
Mr. Ross. That is an international organization. We have found hat we do not have jurisdiction.
COURT REVIEW OF COMMITTEE'S ACTION Mr. Case. In the hearings on the 1945 appropriation bill it was elled to my attention that you have not bad any court cases and •hat there was no provision for court review of the Committee's setion. Have any court cases occurred since then?
Mr. Ross. No, Mr. Case. The point that I made about the James taprision was that we made a finding, and we still have that issue before
in the case of the boilermakers. Then it came up through private suit, and the Supreme Court of California incidentally made a decision hat backed ours up; but there is no link between them. It is the same way in connection with our decision in the case of the southern
railroads. We found a contract between the railroads and the brotherhoods which was discriminatory on its face and should not be kept effective.
Also in that connection the Steele case came up by private suit and was decided by the Supreme Court on December 18, last year. The Court unanimously found the same discrimination as the Committee had in its decision more than a year before. There is no connection between the Court case and our own action.
DISPOSITION OF SOUTHERN RAILROADS CASE
Mr. Case. What disposition, if any, has been made of the case involving the southern railroads, where you had some disagreement?
Mr. Ross. That was a difficult case which was referred to the President. The President, in turn, appointed a committee consisting of Judge Stacy of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Judge Holly of Chicago, and the then Mayor Lausche, now Governor Lausche of Ohio. That committee has met with the parties, under its obligation to try to get compliance with our directive. The committee has issued one public statement that it hoped for progress, but we have had no final report from the committee.
Mr. Case. At what time was it referred to the special group?
Mr. CASE. Has the Comptroller General ever reversed or modified his ruling that the Executive order requiring Government contracts to contain this antidiscrimination covenant was directive only and not mandatory?
Mr. Ross. He has not spoken to that, but the President, in a letter to the Attorney General, made it clear that it was mandatory, and the matter rests there.
PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION CASE
Mr. Case. What finally happened in that Philadelphia transporta tion case?
Mr. Ross. Mr. Fleming is our director in Philadelphia. Would you like to direct any questions to him on that?
Mr. Case. I would like to know whether or not the Committed was successful in having the transit company employ Negroes as motormen.
Mr. Ross. I will have to make this reservation, that we did make a decision. The actual application of it came after the War Manpower Commission had intervened; and as you know, there was a work stoppage and eventually it ended with Negroes operating carsabout 8 in the first instance, but I think it has gone up to about 20
The situation seems to be entirely peaceful.
SOURCE OF GREATEST DIFFICULTY
Mr. CASE. Having had that Philadelphia case and some other lik instances, do you anticipate that your greatest difficulty is going to be with employers or with fellow workmen?
Mr. Ross. With both. There are more employees than there are employers, so that there will be resistance from employees in many instances. I think the hopeful thing is that we have faced many situations of that kind, and almost invariably we have worked them out, sometimes with a little delay, but without any serious stoppages. The Philadelphia case is exceptional in that respect.
Mr. CASE. Primarily your problem is not a problem of labor versus employer? Mr. Ross. No, sir.
Mr. Case. In some cases the employers are perfectly willing to include nondiscrimination clauses in their contracts and to follow a policy of nondiscrimination, modified only to the extent that they find difficulty in carrying out that policy with respect to other workers?
Mr. Ross. That is so. I have cited the instance of General Cable, where that kind of a dilemma was present, with workers threatening to quit if Negro girls were upgraded. The fears that precede the solution of a situation of that kind are invariably greater than were justified. In our experience, when once they have come to work side by side, the minority and majority workers get to know each other, respect each other, and a great step in advance has been made.
Mr. CASE. Of course, it is not going to be purely that. The problem that is ahead of you is going to be not disliking to work with someone rise or the fear of working with someone else, but the fear of losing a job in the competition for jobs.
Mr. Ross. That is true.
Mr. Case. And various screens will be set up by the person who is trying to hold his job against too much competition for that job.
Mr. Ross. The labor unions I think will be very important in the adjustment period ahead. I pointed out that a jungle fight for jobs in 1919 caused these serious disorders. If you will think back, Mr. Case--if I may make this point-you will remember that collective bargaining was obligatory by Government mandate during World War I, and then it was suddenly cut off, and workers at that time had Fery little experience, by and large, in the orderly procedures of collective bargaining. They had very little union discipline. It had been a mandate simply imposing the right to bargain collectively. All at once in 1919 there was a complete stoppage of production when the war with Germany ended. There were very few plans ahead for readjustment of production. The workers were frightened.
Mr. Case. In 1919 was there anything comparable to the rights guaranteed returning veterans under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Ict or under the Selective Service Act?
Mr. Ross. I would say, nothing comparable to what we have now.
Mr. CASE. Do you contemplate in your procedure any revision to permit court review of your findings?
Mr. Ross. Under our Executive order there is no possibility of that.
Mr. Case. I think there is a possibility if you wanted to do so, because it authorizes the promulgation of orders or regulations.
Mr. Ross. I think it would be an excellent thing to have court review, but I see no way of getting into the courts, either for the Committee or for the parties, under this Executive order. Mr. Case. That is all, Mr. Chairman.