Statistics pertaining to wage rates were developed for this facility. The following are the results discolsed by the study: $1.60-$1.70 per hour, total 882 Negroes. $2.41-$2.50 per hour, total 3 Negroes. $2.51-$2.60 per hour, total 7 Negroes. Including the wage rate paid to Negroes, the average earnings of hourly rated employees was found to be $2.09 per hour. Comparative pay rates indicate that out of a total of 1,424 Negro employees, 1,404 of them are being paid at below the average or mean rate of $2.09 per hour. Accepting the possibility that each of the 330 Negroes employed on incentive jobs are in the upper range of their potential rate, the disparity in wages paid to whites or Negroes indicates earnings for white employees averaging up to $.30 per hour more than currently paid to minority group employees. CLIFTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY-CLIFTON, SOUTH CAROLINA In Plant #1 at time of survey, a total of 22 male Negroes were employed with seniority dates starting from September 1939 to October 1967 as date of the most recent hire. Of those employed 19 employees were receiving hourly rates of $1.76 to $1.80 per hour. During 1967 a total of 20 white employees were hired as Picker Tenders Card Tenders-Draw Tenders-Fram Tenders and were receiving $1.905 to $2.155 per hour. In Plant #2 at time of survey a total of 17 male Negroes were employed with seniority dating from 1926 to December 1967. Of those employed, 15 employees were receiving $1.76 to $1.79 per hour. During 1967 a total of 10 white employees were hired as Picker Tenders and Card Tenders at rates of $1.875 to $1.905 per hour. In Plant #3 at time of survey, 17 male Negroes were employed with seniority dates of 1932 to September 1966. All were receiving $1.76 to $1.795 per hour. During 1967 a total of 17 white male employees were hired as Card Tenders, Cloth Doffers and Blow-Off Cleaners with pay rates of $1.83 to $1.87 per hour. In Plant #4, 1 male Negro was employed as Truck Driver at $1.76 per hour with seniority 31 August 1964. During 1967 a total of 7 white males were employed as Utility Man or Doffers at pay rates of $1.815 to $1.83 per hour. In Plant #5, 1 male Negro was employed as Cloth Warp Hauler at $1.76 per hour with seniority date of 1940. During 1967, a total of 11 white males were employed as Utility Man-Smash Hand at pay rate in excess of $1.80 per hour. In Plant #6 a total of 3 male Negroes were employed as Shear Operator ($1.87), Sweeper Hauler ($1.83), Cloth Doffer ($1.83). Seniority dates were September 1963, July 1965, and February 1967. During 1967 one white male was employed as Tender ($2.20), one white male employed as Machine Operator ($2.275) and one white male employed as Shear Operator ($1.87). Outstanding imbalances in the progression and promotion of Negroes is reflected by the following statistics: 95 Fixers, no Negroes, 54 Section Hands, no Negroes, 145 Weavers, no Negroes, 233 Spinners, 2 Negroes, 161 Spool, Semi, Filling, Rolling, Card Tenders, 3 Negroes. It was also noted that of 136 Battery Fillers only 4 Negroes were employed. Position normally furnishes trainees for promotion to Weaver. Regarding statistics on promotions at Clifton, 16 such actions were madesince 1 August 1967. There were 5 Negroes and 11 whites promoted. Average increase for Negroes was $.039 per hour, while average increase for whites was $.366 per hour. A total of 13 out of the 16 promotions were made from entry level positions. Training for these promotional positions seldom exceeded six weeks. ATTACHMENT II CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS IN TEXTILE INDUSTRY CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM January 12-13, 1967.-EEOC holds textile forum in Charlotte, North Carolina focusing on equal employment opportunity in the textile industry in North Carolina and South Carolina. February 23, 1967.-EEOC-OFCC conference discussing possibility of joint textile industry program. March 1 & 20, 1967.-OFCC-EEOC program finalized with OFCC responsible for compliance reviews of ten largest compliance firms in North & South Carolina, with EEOC responsible for remaining companies and referring necessary cases to Department of Justice. November 6, 1967.-Textile industry compliance program agreed upon between OFCC and DOD, with DOD assigning staff for compliance reviews. Compliance reviews to begin in January 1968. January 2, 1968.-OFCC-DOD compliance program implemented. January 15, 1968.-On site compliance reviews set by DOD for Dan River Mills. January 16, 1968.-Meeting in Washington, D.C. between OFCC-DOD-EEOC and top textile industry corporate executives. Purpose was to acquaint textile company executives with objectives of the Government's textile industry compliance program. January 22-26, 1968.-Compliance reviews conducted at Dan River Mills, Greenville and Clifton, South Carolina. Company found in non-compliance. April 22, 1968.-First conciliation conference held with Dan River Mills. Report of findings submitted to company. Company did not come prepared with affirmative action plan. May 14, 1968.-Second conciliation conference held by Department of Defense with Dan River officials submitting first affirmative action plan. Plan not satisfactory. May 25, 1968.-Third conciliation conference with Dan River Mills. Second affirmative action plan submitted. Plan again not responsive toward achieving compliance. June 4, 1968.-Dan River Mills advised their proposal not acceptable. Company given 10 days to respond. At company's request, an extension was granted until June 25. June 24, 1968.-Dan River Mills proposal received. Proposal considered less than fully responsive by DOD. July 3, 1968.-Dan River Mills advised of this by DOD. Meaningful response requested by July 12. July 12 & 16, 1968.-Dan River Mills submits changes in affirmative action plan. August 22, 1968.-Dan River Mills proposals unacceptable to the Department of Defense per Assistant Secretary of Defense memorandum to Director Defense Supply Agency. September 10, 1968.-Dan River Mills advised of this. Resubmittal requested by September 27. September 24, 1968.-DOD requests affirmative action plans from J. P. Stevens and Burlington Industries. October 10, 1968.-Dan River Mills replies. Revised affirmative action plan being prepared, to be submitted by November 15 to DOD. October 18, 1968.-DOD advises Dan River Mills that reply inadequate. Further reply requested by October 28. October 26, 1968.-Response by Dan River Mills advised DOD affirmative action plan to be submitted by November 15. November 18, 1968.-Dan River affirmative action plan received by DOD. November 26 & 30, 1968.-Burlington, J. P. Stevens' affirmative action plans received by DOD; both plans found unacceptable. December 10, 1968.-Dan River plan reviewed and action recommended by DCAS to DOD. January 6, 1969.-OFCC receives request from DOD to discuss evaluation of affirmative action plan of Dan River Mills. January 7, 1969.-Meeting held between OFCC and DOD-DCAS concerning Dan River. January 9, 1969.-DOD advises DCAS not to award textile contracts to companies in non-compliance. January 16 & 17, 1969.-DOD meets with Dan River Mills, J. P. Stevens, Burlington officials in Washington, D.C. requesting final meaningful affirmative action plan by January 23. January 27, 1969.-OFCC requests status report from DOD by January 31, 1969. February 1, 1969.-DOD postponed ruling on textile firms. February 8, 1969.-DOD awards contracts to textile firms-Dan River Mills, J. P. Stevens, Inc., Burlington Industries in exchange for promised "affirmative action" to eliminate discrimination in their employment. ATTACHMENT 3 I have today sent the following wire to Secretary of Labor George Shultz: "Because the Department of Defense is continuing to award contracts to large Carolina textile firms who are among the most notorious discriminatory employers in the nation, I strongly urge you to take the following steps: (1) Cancel the DOD contracts already awarded to J. P. Stevens, Burlington Mills, and Dan River Mills on February 8, 1969, February 19, 1969, and February 20, 1969 because of the failure of these contractors "to comply with the non-discrimination provisions" of their contracts. Authority for such action exists in Sec. 209 (a) (6) of Executive Order 11246. (2) Provide that DOD "shall refrain from entering into further contracts" or extensions of existing contracts with these three firms until you are satisfied that these contractors will comply with the Executive Order banning discrimination in employment by Federal contractors. Authority for such action exists under Sec. 209 (a) (6) of Executive Order 11246. (3) Exercise the authority granted to you under Executive Order 11246, Sec. 211, and direct DOD not to enter into contracts with any of the eight largest Carolina textile firms unil they have submitted a program for compliance with the Order satisfactory to you." I have taken such action because of the following events. On February 8, 1969, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, David Packard awarded $9.4 million in federal contracts to three Southern textile mills under investigation for discrimination in employment policies. In doing so, he did not consult with or seek the concurrence of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, (OFCC), the agency charged with formulating guidelines and coordinating contract compliance. As a result of findings by a DOD investigating team that these three firms did in fact discriminate against Negroes in hiring, promotion and other practices, assurances to remedy these deficiencies were sought; at this point, neither OFCC nor DOD would recommend approval of their contracts. Secretary Packard then unilaterally awarded the contracts to these three firms after their Presidents had assured him that they would implement "affirmative action plans" to achieve the results contemplated under the Executive Order. On February 19, and February 20, 1969, DOD, again bypassing and ignoring OFCC, awarded approximately $32 million in contracts to J. P. Stevens and a $1 million to Burlington Industries. And there is every indication that between now and March 31, DOD will award another $12 million to 7 of the 8 firms involved in a major compliance review of civil rights practices of the Carolina textile industry undertaken by OFCC and DOD in January, 1968. In response to my letter to Secretary Packard on February 11, 1969 (copies of which are available) asking to be informed of the terms of the assurances given to him by these firms, I received a copy of a letter written by Mr. Packard to Secretary Shultz. In his letter, Mr. Packard admits that the companies to which he has awarded $14 million in DOD contracts. (1) do not provide "in detail 'specific goals and time tables for the prompt achievement of full and equal opportunity' as required by OFCC rules and regulations." (2) have not remedied the present effects of past discrimination nor submitted a plan to do so; (3) that they have no meaningful plan to assure nondiscrimination to recruiting, selection, promotion and upgrading of employees. (4) and that some company housing is segregated, but that no plan for prompt desegregation exists. However, based on these companies' assurances in effect "to do better," he awarded the contracts. The subsequent contracts to J. P. Stevens and Brlington Industries were awarded on the basis of Secretary Packard's recent precedent. Mr. Packard implicitly concedes in his letter that no written commitments were obtained from these companies. It is also clear that nothing more was obtained than a promise to implement "affirmative action." Secretary Packard's action, therefore, is in clear violation of the following Regulation issued by the Secretary of Labor under the authority of Executive Order 11246; (copies are on hand). (b) Where deficiencies are found to exist, reasonable efforts shall be made to secure compliance through conciliation and persuasion. Before the contractor can be found to be in compliance with the order, it must make a specific commitment, in writing, to correct any such deficiencies. The commitment must include the precise action to be taken and dates for completion. The time period alloted shall be no longer than the minimum period necessary to effect such changes. The assurances received by Secretary Packard violate this regulation in three respects: (1) The commitment was not in writing. (2) The commitment did not include any "precise action to be taken." '(3) There was no mention of any "dates of completion" for the action to be taken by the companies. Similar requirements are also contained in DOD's own Regulations. I believe several issues are at stake here. 1. Whether or not the Federal Government will award contracts to firms engaging in these discriminatory practices on the basis of vague oral promises to try harder; 2. Whether or not DOD will award these contracts in violation of both Department of Labor regulations and DOD regulations. 3. And whether or not DOD will make a shambles of federal contract compliance by bypassing and failing to consult the agency charged with responsibility in this matter, OFCC. I would like some answers to these questions and I have not yet received them. This Executive Order is a vital step in a long and continuing struggle to eliminate discrimination in this country. Its purpose is to guarantee our minority citizens a fair shake by government contractors in hiring, promotion, and job training. DOD's actions in the past month may be an ominous sign that the new Administration is not committed to ending government subsidized discrimination. Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, ATTACHMENT 5 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, DEAR SECRETARY SHULTZ: It is my understanding that you have undertaken a complete review of the recent Department of Defense decision to award contracts to three Southern textile firms. As you may know, I expressed my concern to Deputy Secretary Packard about the fact that the OFCC was apparently bypassed in reaching this decision; in addition, I also asked the Deputy Secretary to inform me as to the terms of the agreement reached between these firms and the Department. I am pleased that you are in the process of reviewing the entire matter. What particularly concerns me is that the Deputy Secretary's action may have disrupted the procedure established to assure that government contractors, such as these three firms, do not practice discrimination. I would therefore appreciate it if you would inform me as to the role of the Department of Labor and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, not only in regard to the contracts already awarded to these three firms, but also in regard to contracts presently under consideration between the Department of Defense and the other large textile firms located in the South. I would also like to know what you have learned from the Department of Defense concerning the terms of the assurances obtained from J. P. Stevens, Dan River Mills, and Burlington Industries. Since it is still unclear as to exactly what procedures were followed by the Department of Defense in this matter and since there has been no disclosure of the terms of the assurances obtained from the three firms in question, it would be helpful if you could supply me with the information requested as soon as possible. DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: This is in response to your 11 February 1969 letter regarding the Department of Defense equal employment opportunity compliance efforts in the textile industry. The Department of Defense has conducted this program cooperatively with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor. This effort started in January 1968. To date, more than sixty-five textile compliance reviews have taken place and significant progress has been made. After the completion of the compliance reviews of the facilities of Dan River Mills, Burlington Industries and J. P. Stevens, Defense Supply Agency, the agency responsible for contract compliance operations, conducted intensive negotiations with these companies. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor and the Department of Justice were consulted and kept fully informed of these negotiations. The Defense Supply Agency found the affirmative action plans of these companies deficient in specific areas. The Deputy Secretary of Defense discussed these deficiencies with the chief executives of the three companies. They assured him that their companies would implement affirmative action plans to achieve the results contemplated under the Executive Order. On the basis of these assurances, the decision was made to proceed with the pending award. The Department of Labor was consulted before this action was taken. The enclosed report to the Secretary of Labor by Secretary Packard details these events. Secretary Packard will receive quarterly progress reports on these companies. These reports will be made available to the Department of Labor and they will be consulted. It is our intent to fully meet all our responsibilities under Executive Order 11246. Sincerely, JACK MOSKOWITZ, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Civil Rights and Industrial Relations. |