national origin.

A survey of its operations within 30 days after the initial investigations showed that five Negro machine operators had been hired at one of its plants in North Carolina. It should be observed that the Committee does not require the hiring of Negroes or any other minority group, but that it seeks to create open conditions in which all qualified applicants will be fully and fairly considered.

III-STEEL

Group complaints of racial discrimination in upgrading and promotion have resulted in substantial action and commitments for corrective action by steel companies in West Virginia, Alabama and Texas.

In a Texas case, Negro employees were locked into lower classifications without opportunity to move to a base classification leading to higher job categories. Negro employees complained that white workers with less seniority and no greater ability were being promoted while the Negroes were passed over. Employee facilities were also segregated.

After investigation, three complaints were transferred into the line of seniority for higher jobs, two with retroactive seniority. The company also pledged promotion, transfer and upgrading without regard to race, creed, color or national origin— as required by the Executive orders. Facilities were opened to all employees without regard to race. A subsequent report indicates that many other Negro employees, formerly classified as laborers, have been reclassified to higher grades offering advancement opportunities.

In an Alabama plant, Negro complainants said they were placed in racially segregated lines of promotion-and few of the lines extended beyond semiskilled classifications. Investigation confirmed these allegations. The company and union then negotiated changes in several departments. Negotiations on other racially separate, rather than functionally separate, lines also were initiated and resulted in the merger of more than 60 such lines. It should be pointed out that these successful negotiations took place at the height of the Birmingham disturbances.

In a West Virginia case, complaints about the company's system of job assignment, transfer and promotion resulted in an open-bid system of appli

systematic company review of the qualifications of its Negro employees. Complainants were offered transfer rights and opportunities for training hitherto barred to them. One complainant was promoted to foreman. And, for the first time, the company has hired Negro women for office and clerical positions.

IV-TOBACCO

Group complaints of racial discrimination in transfer and upgrading were filed against two tobacco firms in North Carolina. At both companies, resolution of complaints and alteration of traditionally discriminatory practices required extensive negotiations with corporate manage

ment.

At one company, management proposed amendment of the collective bargaining agreement-but its proposal was rejected by the white local of the union. After the Committee contacted both the local and international union, the agreement was amended to permit a uniform system of transfer and promotion without regard to race.

At the other company, following negotiations, the company submitted a comprehensive program of affirmative compliance with the Executive order. It included action necessary to resolve the complainants' grievances.

V-AIRCRAFT

Investigation of racial discrimination against facilities of three aircraft firms in five states has resulted in substantial alterations of the contractors' employment practices. Group complaints were filed against four facilities; individual complaints against two. Complaints against one facility alleged discrimination in hiring; the remainder of them dealt with upgrading and transfer.

In Connecticut, upgrading complaints resulted in a complete reevaluation of company practices by corporate officials. After this review, complainants and others were offered upgrading to positions more consistent with their qualifications. Some accepted; others, for reasons of job security, declined.

In Indiana, investigation of a complaint of hiring discrimination disclosed that, while the plant had been in operation for more than 20

a 6-month period following an NAACP drive in 1960. Subsequent to investigation and negotiation, the company recalled the complainant and altered its practices to include recruitment of Negro applicants.

A check a few months after the first investigation showed that the company's changed recruitment practices had resulted in the employment of more than 85 Negro employees in various job categories. Subsequent to the original investigation, management joined in the Plans for Progress program, pledging extension of its efforts toward a more affirmative compliance program.

In Alabama, complaints of racial discrimination against a facility of the above company alleged Negroes were unable to transfer or secure promotions for strictly racial reasons. Negotiations resulted in the company's agreement to interview all of its Negro employees and to review their qualifications, preparatory to upgrading and relocation as vacancies occurred. Subsequent inquiry disclosed that offers of transfer and upgrading have been made to 15 Negro employees. In addition, 13 Negro applicants have been hired into seven classifications in four previously all-white divisions.

In North Carolina and Tennessee, investigations of complaints against two contractors revealed that Negro employees were always placed in menial labor categories while white applicants of similar qualifications were placed in production departments, given intensive training, and had progressed according to ability to considerably higher qualifications.

After negotiations, the companies opened training courses to Negroes and instituted counseling services for all employees to give guidance as to which courses they should pursue. At one plant, separate facilities already had been eliminated; at the other, facilities were desegregated after Committee investigation.

Both concerns reevaluated their methods of recruitment and initial hire. This resulted in a

In the shipbuilding industry, group complaints about job assignment and seniority practices resulted in alteration of employment patterns in companies in California and Mississippi.

In California, the company adopted a policy of equal opportunity and upgraded some Negro employees to positions more commensurate with their qualifications. It was subsequently found, however, that Negro and white painters were assigned to different departments. The white painters' jobs were steady; the Negro painters' jobs depended upon production and it fluctuated. When production flagged, Negro painters were laid off while white painters with similar qualifications, and considerably less seniority, were retained. After negotiations with both company and union, the collective bargaining agreement was amended to provide a single seniority list for all painters. The international union assisted in making this possible.

VII-FOOD PROCESSING

In the food processing industry, complaints against facilities of three companies in Georgia and Texas resulted not only in substantial changes in practices at the facilities, but also in corporate changes affecting the companies' facilities in several other states. Group complaints filed against all three companies alleged racial discrimination in job assignment and upgrading and segregation of facilities. In all three, the employment practices complained of have been altered to provide for equal opportunity. In addition, recruitment and hiring practices now afford equal opportunity.

performing any work directly or indirectly under any Government contracts or Federally assisted construction contracts.)" The instructions also provide that compliance reports will be filed by prime contractors within thirty (30) days after the award of a contract. and by first-tier subcontractors within sixty (60) days after the award of a subcontract. Annual reports are then to be filed on March 31 of each year, as long as the contractor continues to perform any work under any Government contract. (Plans for Progress companies report on an anual basis each December 31.)

Objectives of the System

The compliance reporting system is designed to provide:

1. A means of assessing the impact of the non-discrimination provision on Government contractors and for measuring progress in opening up equal job opportunities to minority group persons.

2. A manpower profile of the work force of the nation affected by Government contracts. 3. An analysis of employment patterns of minority groups in the work force.

4. An analysis of situations affecting the under-utilization of the manpower potential of such minority groups.

5. An effective tool to be used by the employers, themselves, in assessing the effect of their employment policies on minority group

persons.

6. An instrument to be used by the Federal contracting agencies in administering the nondiscrimination program and for promoting the practice as well as the principle of equal employment opportunities among Government contractors.

7. A means for an affirmative approach to be taken by the Government, by management, by labor, by the community, and by organizations and individuals to eliminate practices and conditions which disadvantage considerable segments of our nation's population only because of reasons of race, creed, color or national origin.

Any reporting program of the magnitude of that undertaken by the Committee invariably produces a steady stream of correspondence from contrac

and private individuals requesting information, guidance, clarifications or interpretations with respect to the program. As a result, the Committee developed a "Questions and Answers" pamphlet containing detailed answers to questions most frequently raised with respect to the compliance reporting program. Distribution of this pamphlet has reduced the flow of inquiries and the number of reports which had to be returned for additional information.

Coverage of the Program

Since the greatest proportion of the Federal procurement dollar is spent for manufactured items, manufacturing firms make up the major portion of those covered by the reporting program. It is estimated that approximately 38,000 companies in nonagricultural industries eventually will be covered. These companies have approximately 50,000 establishments and 152 million employees. It is estimated that the maximum coverage should be reached by the reporting year 1964.

In considering the analysis that follow, it must be borne in mind that Standard Form 40 does not cover those contractors participating in the Committee's Plans for Progress program. While these companies are subject to the Executive order and the compliance program, they furnish statistics under a separate reporting program. The two reporting systems have been made statistically compatible and together will provide information on the estimated coverage of more than 151⁄2 million employees.

It should also be pointed out that the reporting program involving the use of Standard Form 40 does not apply to the construction or utilities. industries. Due to the distinctive nature of the construction industry and the fluid nature of the work force represented by the building trades, a separate reporting system has been developed and is now in operation. Under the reporting program for construction contracts, each contractor having a contract for construction, repair and alteration for $100,000 or more, and each subcontractor having a subcontract thereunder for $50,000 or more is required to file compliance reports. A special form, designated as Standard Form 41 (Compliance Report-Construction) has been developed and distributed by the contracting agencies. All contracts and subcontracts subject

after January 1, 1963, are affected by this reporting program. The first reports started flowing to the contracting agencies on March 31, 1963. Unlike the reporting procedures for the other industries, construction contractors and subcontractors are required to file reports directly with the contracting agencies and not with the Committee. An appropriate reporting system for utilities is being developed.

Approximately 80 percent of the money expended in Government contracts for construction, repair and alteration is for contracts having a dollar value of $100,000 or more. Thus, it is estimated that a very large portion of the workers in the construction industry and the building trades will be covered by this reporting program.

Current Review of the Compliance

Reporting Program

The compliance reporting program utilizing Standard Form 40 has been in effect for more than 18 months. It has demonstrated that it is a reliable medium for collecting specific detailed and hitherto unavailable data relating to minority group employment affected by Government con

tracts.

It has also proven to be an effective instrument for use by contracting agencies in developing affirmative action programs with Government contractors. A copy of each report filed is transmitted by the Committee, after review and processing, to the appropriate contracting agency. Each agency, after reviewing the report and the results. of the machine processing, then selects establishments for follow-up actions.

The objectives and the procedures involved in the surveys were discussed earlier in this report (see Private Employment Section).

Through the use of electronic data processing equipment and programing, compliance report statistics on employees by race and sex, by occupation, by industry, and by geographical areas are tabulated. The report form was designed to enable this information to be compared with data such as the 1960 census and the tabulations, now being gathered, are being so structured as to provide comparisons on a national, regional, State and standard metropolitan statistical area basis (major metropolitan and labor market areas in the United States).

establishments and about 4.2 million workers from usable reports received by the Committee through June, 1962, are discussed in this report. It should again be noted that the following are not included in these statistical tabulations:

1. Companies participating in the Committee's cooperative Plans for Progress program. A summary of most of their reports is presented in the Plans for Progress section of this report. Because a very substantial majority of employers in the aerospace field and the transportation equipment industry are participating in the Plans for Progress program, they are underrepresented in the data.

2. The great majority of the contractors in the construction contract industry who are required to file Standard Form 41, which is especially designed for the construction industry. The few construction contractors who filed Standard Form 40 are included in the overall totals in these preliminary tabulations.

3. Public utilities, which do not have general

contracts.

4. Compliance reports not statistically usable which were returned to contractors because of incompleteness. More than 3,000 reports, covering more than one million additional employees, fall in this category.

A primary purpose of securing reports from Government contractors is to obtain as accurate a picture as possible of employment relating to the utilization of minority group workers in the labor force. However, because of time limitations, it has been possible to present in this report only the data on employment of Negroes, the principal minority group covered by this reporting program. Later tabulations, presently incomplete, will present data for Spanish-Americans, orientals and other specified minority groups.

(The following analysis was made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor under the direction of Ewan Clague, Commissioner of the Bureau.)

Profile of Negro Employment in Establishments Filing Compliance Reports in 1962

To provide a basis for evaluating the performance of Federal contractors under the current executive orders banning employment discrimina