GEORGE ROSCOE JONES Foreman of mails, level 7; office seniority, November 1, 1927; supervisory seniority, July 16, 1949. Mr. Jones worked for 15 years at stations in every capacity from dispatcher to clerk in charge. He has had extensive experience in the registry section, classifications, and in every phase of mail at terminal annex. He has submitted the following bids for promotion and has been turned down on all of them: February 16, 1958: General foreman of mails, level 9. July 7, 1958: General foreman of mails, level 9. August 3, 1958: General foreman of mails, level 9. October 29, 1958: Superintendent of transportation, level 10. November 14, 1958: General foreman of mails, level 9. December 10, 1958: General foreman of mails, level 9. July 13, 1959: Station examiner, level 10. August 10, 1959: General foreman of mails (tour 2 or 3), level 9. September 9, 1959: General foreman of mails, level 9. February 25, 1960: General foreman of mails (tour 2 or 3), level 9. May 12, 1961: General foreman of mails, level 9. September 21, 1961: General foreman of mails, level 9. October 25, 1961: General foreman of mails (tour 2), level 9. The above denials of bids refutes the statement that there is a lack of seniority. Mr. Jones has been given no reason why he has been repeatedly denied promotions. Mr. PERRY C. PARKS, Jr., Los Angeles, Calif. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE, DEAR MR. PARKS: This letter is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1961, and the conferences held with you on December 7, 1961, by the regional personnel manager and the special assistant for employee relations concerning your failure to obtain a promotion at the Los Angeles Post Office. The following conclusions were reached : 1. It was agreed that the promotional procedures were being properly followed by the postmaster, Los Angeles. However, it was ascertained that an error was made in the letters sent to the unselected candidates in which it was stated that 19 names were certified to the postmaster for selection of eligibles to fill the supervisory positions being considered. The postmaster admitted that this was an error and has taken immediate action to correct this statement. A careful review by the regional personnel manager of the records indicated that the postmaster had received only 6 names for 6 promotional vacancies. Actually, he should have received 8 names, but 2 of the 8 were not available. 2. The point you raised concerning interviewing 40 eligibles for 6 positions was carefully reviewed. Actually, out of the number of 40, many of the candidates declined consideration for promotion due to not desiring to be on a specific shift where the vacancy existed, and for other reasons. Some of the candidates were ineligible because they were mobile unit employees. A review indicated that the provisions in the Postal Bulletin of May 25 were being adhered to in that 9 names for the first vacancy and 2 names for each additional vacancy were being properly certified to the promotional board for interview. 3. You contended that the postmaster was not following the provisions of section 716.242b, which states that eligibles who are in the highest level below the position to be filled should be considered first. Our review indicates that the postmaster has been following this requirement. 4. Your statement that there is only one representative of an ethnic group on the promotional board was correct. Careful consideration is being given by the postmaster to assure that proper representation on promotional boards is afforded for all groups. 5. Your contention that performance evaluation, seniority factors, and your written score in the examination should be the only criteria considered in making supervisory selections has been given careful consideration. This matter has been discussed in the past, and is being referred to the Department for their further consideration. 6. Your contention that the letter received from the postmaster, dated October 30, advising you as to why you were not selected for a supervisory position was not specific has been sustained. It was agreed that you would address another letter to the postmaster in which you would ask that he advise you specifically the reasons why you were not selected and also advise you what you could do to correct the supposed deficiencies. We can assure you that this office insists on complete compliance by all postmasters with the promotional program established by the Postmaster General and that under no circumstances whatsoever will any discriminatory practices be tolerated. Our review of the promotional program at the Los Angeles Post Office reveals that no discriminatory practices were involved. It was mutually agreed by you and Mr. Gibson, president of the Los Angeles local of the alliance, that the allegations submitted by you have been satisfactorily resolved. Sincerely yours, F. RAY HOGAN, Special Assistant for Employee Relations (For Raymond R. Holmquist, Regional Director). Mr. ALBERT G. BERGESEN, DECEMBER 20, 1961. DEAR MR. BERGESEN: At 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, a conference was held in the office of Los Angeles postmaster, Mr. Otto K. Olesen. Present at this conference were the postmaster, Mr. Dunavant, his personnel officer, finance officer, Mr. Huber, Mr. Henry C. Gibson, of the Los Angeles Branch, National Alliance of Postal Employees, Mr. Perry Parks, branch welfare chairman and vice president of district 10, National Alliance of Postal Employees, and myself. The chief subject of the conference was the validity or invalidity of the September promotion of six persons to supervisory positions in the Los Angeles Post Office. I opened the discussion with the statement that I had met with you on December 8 in your office, that we had discussed the complaint originating in the Los Angeles branch and your conference with Mr. Gibson and Mr. Parks on the previous day. I suggested to Postmaster Olesen that in September, his promotion advisory board had usurped his authority by actually making the selection of the six supervisors itself, by its act of submitting only six names from which he, the postmaster, must select six supervisors. The postmaster questioned his personnel officer as to whether, in the case in question, he was indeed entitled to a list of eight names from which to make his selection. Mr. Dunavant admitted that strict observance of the promotion policy would have required the board to submit eight names. He went on to suggest the possibility that the board may have found only 6 of the 19 persons under consideration worthy of having their names submitted to the postmaster for appointment. To this idea we entered two strong objections. First, the terms of the promotion plan are mandatory, not permissive. The board must in every case submit two names in excess of the number of positions to be filled. The word used in this section is "shall" not "may." We further pointed out that if the board had followed the listing procedure laid down for its individual members it would be impossible for the board to come up with less than the required number of names. Secondly, the idea that all of the 13 rejected candidates are totally unfitted for supervisorships is negated by the fact that the names of 3 of these candidates were submitted at the next promotion period. Mr. Dunavant, supported by Mr. Huber, suggested that since these were the first promotions based in the new program, some violation of procedure should not be unexpected. They further contended that no one suffered from the error, that even if eight names had been submitted to the postmaster the same six persons would have been chosen. This reasoning we reject. Here again someone is substituting his judgment for that of the postmaster. We hold that all of the 13 rejected candidates were adversely affected by this deviation from proper procedure, for all were entitled to consideration for becoming 1 of the 2 additional names. The invalidity of the procedure by which the six were selected being established, we asked the postmaster and his staff what they intended to do about the six selected. All they could or would volunteer was the promise that in the future proper procedure will be followed. Acting on your suggestion to discover whether Mr. Gibson, Mr. Parks, and the Los Angeles branch of the alliance are satisfied with this state of affairs, I discussed it with them at length. It was felt that these appointments are extremely vulnerable to challenge but it was also felt that justice would not be advanced by inflicting hardships on the six new supervisors because of an error for which they were not responsible. This decision of the branch not to challenge should not be interpreted to mean that they are happy about the situation or that there is not still some suspicion that what happened in this case was not entirely accidental. In the light of other situations that have come to my attention, their suspicion that this "error" falls neatly into a continuing pattern of discrimination, is not too unrealistic. If accurate minutes of the meeting of the September promotion advisory board are available to you it should be possible to discover the identity of the persons who were ranked seventh and eighth by the board. From this it may be able to infer whether or not race was a consideration in the board's decision to submit only six names. In looking over the training and experience record of Mr. Perry Parks, and observing him in action it is difficut, if not impossible, to believe that the Los Angeles post office is so blessed wtih outstanding, potential supervisory talent that a person of his undoubted ability can be long passed over in the selection of supervisors. I have found that promotion policies in this office, both at the initial and upper levels, do not enjoy the confidence of the branch of the alliance. Something is certainly needed here to restore confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the promotion system as operated in the Los Angeles post office. There is a bitter feeling that the New Frontier, with its bright promise of equal opportunity, has not yet reached this office. The Los Angeles Branch of the National Alliance of Postal Employees will not be satisfied until the promise is realized. I had hoped to be able to submit to you a more hopeful report, but this is the Los Angeles situation as I see it. Sincerely, ASHBY G. SMITH, President, National Alliance of Postal Employees. Los Angeles, Calif., December 21, 1961. Mr. PERRY C. PARKS, Jr., DEAR MR. PARKS: In response to your letter of December 7, the superintendent of personnel advises me that all of the official notifications to supervisory eligibles interviewed, but not selected, have been mailed. You request that you be informed "specifically and in detail" of the areas in which you failed to meet the criteria which have been set for promotion to a supervisory position in this office. I have been informed of the circumstances relative to your failure to be selected, and you surely must recall having been counseled twice concerning your need for improvement in expressing yourself. You have a tendency to speak indecisively and in such a way as to make it difficult to hear or understand what you are trying to say. When you were interviewed by the promotion advisory board on November 2, you were again counseled in this respect and told that there was no evidence of improvement. The majority of the members of the promotion advisory board were at no time convinced that you possess the qualifications for promotion to supervisor. In fact, two members of the board outlined your deficiencies to you. It was stated by the assistant general superintendent of mails that you had been personally known to him since you first entered the postal service, that over the years you were considered to be barely getting by, and you could never have been considered anything but average. It was also stated that promotion is expected to be earned through superior performance, demonstrated effort, attitude and contribution to the daily job to be performed, and you had consistently failed to show sufficient potential for assuming the role of a manager; further, that your lack of enthusiasm for and support of the programs of the Department had been apparent. I am confident these matters were made very clear to you, in view of your telephone call to the office of the assistant postmaster the following morning in which you expressed your appreciation for the frank discussions and gave your assurance of improvement. I would be pleased to see a sincere effort on your part to cause a change and permit a better evaluation which would earn you favorable consideration of promotion in the future. Sincerely, Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, OTTO K. OLESEN, Postmaster. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., January 4, 1962. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: My name is Dolores K. Browning and I have been in the postal service in Los Angeles, Calif., since September 1942. In 1959 I bid on a level 5 position in the claims and inquiry section. I did not receive an acknowledgment of the receipt of the bid nor did I ever hear anything from the personnel section in consideration. I was not interviewed to determine my qualifications. The position was awarded to a Frank Vincent Parque. I know nothing of his qualifications, but I do know that his seniority date is 1947 and mine is 1943. In a recent statement clarifying the awarding of level 5 positions, Mr. Donavant, the superintendent of personnel, stated that prior to 1961, level 5 positions were filled by the senior qualified employee. This procedure has now been revised to read the best qualified employee. This gives a freer field for any appointments of any personnel, with or without seniority in the majority of instances-without. This method completely rules out the seniority factor, does it not? There are many of us that entered the service during the war and have 15 years and better of seniority, and stand to be promoted into many level 5 positions if the seniority factor is considered. A deplorable condition now exists in the Los Angeles Post Office, wherein an employee with little or no seniority, can be trained for a position before the bid is posted, then the bidders with seniority are counted down due to lack of the training that was surreptitiously given the neophyte. I will cite just one of many existing examples of the above statement: A part-time temporary substitute employee entered the service of the Los Angeles Post Office in July 1961. She is not on the workfloor working the mail, learning a scheme, as is the rule. She is assigned to the civil service section in the Federal Building, working 8 hours daily, under the most favorable of conditions. She is currently being trained to do the work of key personnel of the board, and even monitors examinations. Just what could be the duties of the key personnel if a part-time substitute employee can be trained to do their work in this manner. It is interesting to note that many part-time employees have not been required to take a civil service examination. Considering all of the qualified personnel that have given faithful service over a period of years, how does one justify such flagrant partiality? When I first entered the service, certain employees who came in at the same time, with and without clerical experience, were being assigned to office work and I inquired of a general foreman how I might also do office work, as I had recently been a legal secretary in another city. He told me in no uncertain terms that, and I quote, "It takes seniority to get any preferred job around here. You just started working here. When you have enough seniority, then you can bid on a job." I replied that some of the young women that had come in with me didn't even know how to type, but were being trained in office work. He replied, "That's what you think, and we are not paying you to think here, just do as you're told, and you will get along." I now have the seniority of which he so boorishly spoke, and I have bid on several level 5 positions but I remain among the forever level 4's. On one occasion, as a result of a bid on a level 5 position, I was interviewed by Mr. Donavant of the personnel section. At this time the senior employee, at least he was senior to me, had been working in the job in question for many months due to a long illness suffered by the employee then holding the job. I have never been able to understand the motive behind my being interviewed at this time, since I certainly could not have been considered senioritywise, and definitely had not had the experience to outweigh that of this employee, who was finally awarded the position which he had been filling for many months. In contrast, in the instance of the claims section bid, it appears that I was not even considered senioritywise or otherwise. You will probably wonder why I am just writing about this injustice in our Department. I have formerly made all my complaints to our union, and Mr. Micanovich, the president, has repeatedly told me that they were doing all that they could but their hands were tied. He also told me that they had been fighting this sort of thing for years but just couldn't seem to crack it. It was at this time that I stopped paying dues. What good is a union if it can't help its employees? Certainly no situation is bigger than the Department in which it exists. Is this a situation that no one can handle? We are periodically being admonished and advised by the postmaster to be proud of our jobs as part of the postal family, but how can we? Can I be proud of a job where I am denied advancement despite my qualifications, ability and seniority? Can the perpetrators of this discrimination be really proud of their accomplishments? I think not. If the survival of our country and the ideals that democracy stands for, de pends in a small part on the outlook of the Federal employees, their spiritual stability consciousness, there will certainly have to be a right-about-face and a beginning of true consideration of quality, not color, in filling positions. As things now stand, it is clearly apparent to many employees besides myself, that in the Los Angeles Post Office, the words "best qualified employee" means most nearly the "senior Caucasian," and that seniority is only useful to determine "which Caucasian." I should be interested to know your views on these matters and whether or not there is anything that can be done to promote a more equable method of placement and upgrading; one that would withstand the bypassing policies as aforementioned. Awaiting your reply, I am DOLORES K. BROWNING. APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT-DISCRIMINATION AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COSTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: I regret very much the delay in getting to you the information you requested some time ago, with respect to the cost of discriminaion as reflected in public assistance costs in Los Angeles County. However, I am delighted that we were able to secure the basic statistics out of which this cost could be determined. Enclosed please find a statement, in duplicate, covering this matter. I trust that it is what you want, and that it assists you in making your case for a Federal Fair Employment Practices Act. Please feel free to call upon us at any time if you feel that we can be of assistance in any of the programs in which we may have some competence. Very truly yours, JOHN A. BUGGS, Executive Secretary. |