BOSTON NAVY YARD 89357 HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS OF CIVILIANS AT THE UNITED STATES NAVY YARD, BOSTON, MASS. JUNE 28, 1946 (VERBATIM REPORT) Printed for the use of the Committee on Naval Affairs UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1946 EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS OF CIVILIANS AT THE BOSTON NAVY YARD FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1946 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a. m., in room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator David I. Walsh (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Walsh (chairman). Also present: Rear Adm. Norborne L. Rawlings, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Ships (for naval shipyards); accompanied by Commander White; Rear Adm. Frederick G. Crisp, Chief of the Office of Industrial Relations; Dr. J. H. Weiss, Chief of Field Operations, United States Civil Service Commission; John A. Overholt, Chief of the Efficiency Ratings Administration Section, United States Civil Service Commission; Luther Dodd, examiner in charge of industrial and skilled labor, United States Civil Service Commission; John Edwards, Civil Service Commission; Jack Carter, assistant national legislative representative, Veterans of Foreign Wars; Harry V. Hayden, representing the American Legion; G. S. MacVaugh, national employment officer, Disabled American Veterans; Joseph E. Carroll, commander, grievance board, Navy Yard War Veterans Association, 30 Bellingham Avenue, Revere, Mass.; and John Cooperstock, chairman, grievance board, Navy Yard Veterars Association, Revere, Mass. The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, gentlemen. I see that there are correspondents of the press present. Gentle men, I do not think that this will be particularly interesting to the press. This is a discussion of the grievances of some of the employees of the navy yard at Boston, Mass. My understanding is correct, is it not, that this pertains merely to Boston, the navy yard at Boston? Mr. CARROLL. That is right; just Boston. Admiral CRISP. There may be grievances involving other navy yards; however, this meeting is with reference only to Boston. That is my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, gentlemen of the press, if you desire to stay, you may; but this will be a discussion of personal difficulties, the grievances of individual cases. We are seeking to adjust or clear up certain conditions that the employees are making complaints about. Now, let us take the names of those who are present. I have asked · the stenographer to come here because I do not want to keep going over and over these things. We have had this matter up before. Now we will have a record of what is said and done here to that it will be unnecessary to go over it again. We will begin with taking the names of those present. Now that the stenographer has the names, we shall proceed. You gentlemen want to present some suggestions in regard to employment conditions at all navy yards or simply the Boston Navy Yard? Mr. CARROLL. All navy yards would be affected, of course, by whatever is done here. The CHAIRMAN. Well, are there representatives from other navy yards than the Boston Navy Yard here this morning? (No response.) Mr. COOPERSTOCK. No, Mr. Chairman; I do not believe there are. Apparently not. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Now, let us begin with the first grievance. I shall not be able to give you very much time, so I want you to confine the discussion to these particular issues which are listed in this paper I have. What is the first matter that you desire to take up? Cases heard by Civil Service Commission of veterans who got efficiency mark of "R", but through misunderstanding did not appeal in the yard. Some of these cases were heard by the Civil Service but, owing to agreement between the Navy Department and Civil Service Commission, no decisions are being given (against the law). The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute; you read that so fast I could not digest it. Let me read it. Now, what do you mean by "against the law"? Mr. CARROLL. Well, there is no law that allows them to make such an agreement, an agreement between the Navy Department and the Civil Service Commission. According to the rules and regulations, any veteran, under sections 14 and 12, is entitled to appeal; but the Civil Service Commission has made an agreement there which we do not think is in the law. It was an agreement drawn up between the Navy Department, in the Boston Navy Yard, and the Civil Service Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what was the agreement? Mr. CARROLL. In effect, they stated that unless the case had been through the mill, unless they had appealed through the yard, that it would not be heard or could not be heard by the Civil Service Com mission. Now, let me elaborate. The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, please. Is there any dispute about the facts alleged by this witness? Mr. WEISS. Senator, the whole idea about this regulation was an endeavor to screen so that there would not result a large work load. Otherwise, we would have an accumulation of work load in handling appeals of all the veterans. The CHAIRMAN. That is, the trouble is that you have such a work load that there is a delay; but it is not intended that there will not be any decision? Mr. WEISS. That is right. We simply have a backlog, a tremendous work load. The CHAIRMAN. Well, how long have the delays been? Mr. COOPERSTOCK. Weeks. There are cases where it was more than that. Not only that, but in order for a man not to be laid off or discharged, he has to have an efficiency rating of "F" or higher. The CHAIRMAN. That is another angle. Mr. COOPERSTOCK. Also, they will not hear cases. The CHAIRMAN. You say they will not; but hearings have been held? Mr. WEISS. Senator, I would like to say here that, of course, if a person appeals and he is still dissatisfied, he can still come to the Commission with his case. Now, we feel that in many cases management would hear the case and make its own decision. We think that is good procedure. These cases that Mr. Cooperstock is referring to-I think it would be well for us to take a look at those cases. Mr. COOPERSTOCK. Well, in that connection, we made this request which we think was a fair request, when we were called into the office of Captain Rockwell. We agreed that we would go along with the agreement if he heard, if he ordered the hearing of all of the cases. Now, we were refused. Now, all of those cases were already on the agenda and we were ready to go ahead and prove that there were obstacles that were placed. We claim that under the law they have the right to be heard under the Civil Service Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Does the Civil Service Commission have a representative at the yard? Mr. WEISS. We have, in Boston. The CHAIRMAN. At the navy yard? Mr. WEISS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You mean in the Post Office Building? Mr. WEISS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And you feel that your treatment has been unfair and unreasonable there? Mr. COOPERSTOCK. Yes, we do. Mr. Foley claims that until he gets permission from the office, he cannot render decisions. Admiral CRISP. Senator, I don't know that you have a clear understanding of this. It might save time if I explained it. An employee at the navy yard gets an efficiency mark. This applies to all employees, whether they are veterans or nonveterans. Now, when he gets that efficiency mark, he has 15 days in which to appeal that mark if he is dissatisfied or thinks that the mark is not fair. Now, he is told that specifically. He cannot claim that he does not know about it, because that information is on the sheet. Now, in some cases, veterans or nonveterans have failed to make the appeal until 3, 4, 5, or 6 months later, when there have been reductions in force. Then, they make their appeal; they have not previously made the appeal, they have made no complaint, and they do not make it until they have reached a reduction in force. Now, what these gentlemen claim is that, at that time, when the reduction occurs, they should be able to make the appeal. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Admiral CRISP. We think that this is not a veterans' question at all. It is a question that applies to every employee. He is given 15 days to make an appeal, and once that appeal is made, nothing can happen to him until it is settled, and they can go to the Commission on that appeal. ̧ The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree to that statement, substantially? Mr. CARROLL. Yes; except that |