I would be less than candid if I did not say that I feel some factors, not in the best interests of a viable equal employment opportunity program, are at play particularly in Houston, whether perceived to be of good intention or not.

The East Texas District will strive by training and information to minimize the terrible drain on the effectiveness of the system.

Lest I detract too much from the legitimate use of the grievance and complaint procedures, it should be pointed out that employees covered by our collective bargaining agreement have an elaborate negotiated grievance procedure to air complaints of any type. In the absence of settlement through the steps of the grievance procedure, final and binding arbitration is provided for under this agreement. Non-bargaining-unit employees have procedures available to them which provide for fair and equitable handling of grievances that arise among that group of employees.

I feel that more-than-adequate steps for complaint handling under EEO procedures are available to all applicants and employees of the Postal Service.

The above options for airing complaints are most conducive and equitable for providing any employee with a complaint the opportunity to have that complaint heard and disposed of by impartial and qualified adjudicators. While our objective is to equitably dispose of all legitimate complaints at the lowest possible level, the procedures allow clearly impartial disposition at one or more steps of the appeal process. Racial discrimination by managers will not be tolerated and discipline commensurate with the circumstances will be taken as warranted.

The second concern I will address is sexual harassment. This area of activity has in very recent times drawn considerable attention in the Postal Services and elsewhere. It is my position that sexual harassment will not be condoned or tolerated in the East Texas District. William F. Bolger, Postmaster General, stated his position on the subject in the April 10, 1980, issue of the Postal Bulletin. I expect all managers and supervisors under my direction to be guided and bound by the comprehensive statement made by the Postmaster General.

In addition, regulations pertaining to sexual harassment printed in the Federal Register, were forwarded by my office to all sectional centers of the district and the Dallas Bulk Mail Center in June of this year. In material part, the definition of sexual harrassment in the subject regulation is stated as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harrassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Some recent allegations of sexual harassment in Houston do not fall within the provisions of this definition. The East Texas District has to educate its managers and employees on what constitutes sexual harassment. From reports I have received, some allegations are made

78-231 0 - 81 - 2

only because a male and female are involved. Normally the female alleges sexual harassment when in reality the male supervisor has perhaps been stern in seeking the female employee to comply with certain rules or policies concerning performance expected of all postal employees. Training and education of managers and employees alike is required to prevent varied disagreements between supervisors and employees from being labeled sexual harassment when, in fact, no violation has occurred.

However, when sexual harassment is proven within the purview of the regulations, appropriate and timely discipline commensurate with the case circumstances will be taken, up to and including removal. This area of concern has been disseminated at all levels in the East Texas District.

My objective is to have supervisors so conduct themselves as to avoid the appearance of sexual harassment, even if the conduct falls considerably short of the above-stated definition.

With the recent transfer of responsibilities for EEO matters from the old Civil Service Commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, certain aspects of the fiscal year 1981 affirmative action plan are being finalized by the regional office with representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The East Texas District and other districts have had considerable input into the formulation of the fiscal year 1981 affirmative action plan. I am advised that the fiscal year 1981 affirmative action plan will be ready by late November of this year. In the meantime, while the fiscal year 1980 plan continues in effect, the district will conscientiously continue to pursue the current plan and will conscientiously pursue and implement the fiscal year 1981 plan upon receipt. My philosophy on affirmative action is, by a favorable climate, to encourage and attract minorities and women that are fully qualified to fill higher level positions. When qualified minorities and women fill higher level positions, tokenism is out and meaningful advancement is attained.

Upward mobility of minorities and women is generally good in the East Texas District. Representation is high in the lower level positions. In levels 15 through 19, which are supervisory and management levels, out of 1,532 positions, 382 or 25 percent are held by minorities. In levels 20 and above, out of 248 positions, there are 22 or 9 percent minorities in these higher levels.

It is recognized that the percentages of minorities in level 20 positions and above need to be improved.

The objectives established for the East Texas District for fiscal year 1981 will greatly assist in upward mobility of women and minorities. They are:

First. To increase women in the total work force from 27 to 30 percent.

Second. To increase promotions of women in levels 15 to 19 by 10 percent over fiscal year 1980. This would result in a total of 66 promotions.

Third. To increase promotions of women in levels 20 and above over fiscal year 1980. Two were promoted in fiscal year 1980. Fiscal year 1981 the goal is to promote three.

Fourth. To increase female higher level detail assignments by 6.6 percent. This aspect aids in identifying and training females for advancement.

As related to minorities, the goals and objectives for fiscal year 1981 are as follows:

First. To increase minorities in the total work force by 3 percent, from 36 percent in fiscal year 1980 to 39 percent for fiscal year 1981. Second. To increase promotions of minorities in levels 15 to 19 by 2 percent over fiscal year 1980; from 25 to 27 percent.

Third. To increase promotions of minorities in levels 20 and above by 1 percent over fiscal year 1980; from 9 to 10 percent.

Fourth. To increase by 3 percent postmaster appointments of minorities. This will result in three more appointments than were appointed in fiscal year 1980.

I feel the above objectives for fiscal year 1981 can be achieved and will enhance our commitments to affirmative action and equal employment opportunities.

I have attached to my statement a pictorial man of the southern region with the territory of the East Texas District highlighted in yellow. Also attached are general statistics for the East Texas District and identification of my immediate staff and sectional center managers.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, and now I would like to introduce William Jennings, the postmaster/management sectional center manager of Houston.

Mr. LELAND. Thank you.
Mr. Jennings?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. JENNINGS, HOUSTON SECTIONAL CENTER MANAGER/POSTMASTER, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am William E. Jennings, MSC manager/postmaster, Houston, Tex. Accompanying me today is Bernard Stinson, the MSC director of employee and labor relations.

I have been a career postal employee since February 1947, when I began carrying mail in Rosemead, Calif.

Since that day in 1947, I have had the opportunity to work in various postal assignments and in several postal facilities. After carrying mail and clerking for over 6 years, I became a member of management in 1953.

Following nearly 3 years as a first-line supervisor, I became an assistant postmaster in Temple City, Calif., in 1956. While in this position, I served on an ad hoc basis as a hearing officer and EEO counselor. Most of my hearing officer and EEO assignments were in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.

Following postal reorganization, I was appointed postmaster at Campbell, Calif., in October 1971.

In January 1973, I was detailed to the position of sectional center manager/postmaster at Pueblo, Colo., a position I was subsequently promoted to in June 1973.

In July 1976, I was promoted to the position of management sectional center manager/postmaster in San Diego, Calif., a position I held until I came to Houston in July 1979.

I offer this brief recap of my career to establish for you that my subsequent observations are based on a frame of reference developed through exposure to a broad range of postal activity.

I would like to relate to you the organizational structure of the U.S. Postal Service here in Houston.

A management sectional center is an administrative subdivision of a district, the manager of which has full management responsibility for all post offices within the ZIP code areas assigned to it.

The Houston MSC consists of the Houston Post Office 113 associate offices in ZIP code areas 770, 772, 774, and 775. The area defined by the ZIP code boundaries includes some 9,757 square miles of Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties, the majority of Harris, Matagorda, Wharton, Waller, Liberty, and Chambers Counties, as well as smaller portions of Austin, Colorado, and Hardin Counties.

This MSC has one of the highest growth rates in the country, as reflected by the 5.8-percent increase in possible delivery points in the past 12 months. The latest population estimate for this service area is 3,155,000 people, who are served by some 8,654 postal employees. Total postal revenue generated in the MSC for fiscal year 1980 was $218,477,000.

The main Houston City Post Office and central mail processing facility is located at 401 Franklin Avenue in Houston. The delivery area of Houston, Tex., covers the majority of Harris County, some 1,680 square miles.