Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I

APPENDIX E

PROCEDURAL AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY-PRESIDENT'S COMMIT-
TEE ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY,
Washington, D.C., January 24, 1962.

Congressman JAMES ROOSEVELT,

Chairman Special Subcommittee on Labor,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROOSEVELT: In response to your request, as chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Labor, for information concerning the procedures for handling complaints of discrimination in Government employment, I am enclosing the following:

1. An outline of the step-by-step procedures in resolving complaints in Federal Government employment.

2. A statistical summary of the status and disposition of complaints. 3. A summary of the program of the Government Employment Division of the committee.

This report does not include detailed information on the extensive affirmative action programs of the executive departments and agencies, but such programs are in progress throughout the Federal structure. These affirmative programs are, of course, vital to the success of the committee's work.

You will note that these materials refer only to the Government employment program and do not cover the work of the committee with regard to Government contract employment. Inasmuch as the request for information was in connection with the subcommittee's hearing on a Government employment complaint, I assumed your request was for information in that field.

We will be happy to furnish information on the committee's program in Government contract employment, if you feel the subcommittee would like to have it. I trust this information is as desired. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

STEPS IN RESOLVING DISCRIMINATION

JOHN G. FIELD, Executive Director. COMPLAINTS IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYMENT

1. Any qualified applicant for Federal Government employment or a Federal employee who believes he has been discriminated against because of race, creed, color, or national origin may file a written, signed complaint.

2. Complaints may be filed with the employment policy officer, deputy employment policy officer, or with the President's Committee. The head of each department or agency has designated an employment policy officer and deputy employment policy officer within their respective department or agency to process complaints of discrimination. The name and address of the employment policy officer, deputy employment policy officer, and the address of the President's Committee are posted on all employee bulletin boards and all bulletin boards which are used to announce Federal examinations and job opportunities in each department or agency, and in the field offices or subdivisions serviced by them. Complaints filed with the President's Committee will normally be referred to the employment policy officer of the agency concerned.

3. On direct receipt of any complaint, the employment policy offcer shall transmit a copy of the complaint to the executive vice chairman. The employment policy officer shall then institute a prompt investigation which shall include a complete case record. When necessary or appropriate for a full development of the case, the investigation shall also include an appraisal of employment practices in the organizational segment or unit in which the alleged discrimination occurred. Within 30 days from receipt of a complaint, the employment policy officer shall process the complaint and submit a report on its disposition to the executive vice chairman. Where the complainant requests a hearing, under provision hereinafter set forth, the report will be submitted within 60 days after receipt of the complaint.

4. If discrimination is found, it shall be corrected, but if the employment policy officer or the deputy employment policy officer cannot clearly determine that the complainant was discriminated against but believes there is sufficient justification for the complaint, an attempt shall be made to resolve the complaint by informal means.

5. If no discrimination is found by the investigation, the complainant shall be so informed, and informed of his right to secure a review by the executive vice chairman, or in the alternative, his right for a hearing before the employment policy officer, deputy employment policy officer, or someone designated by either of them.

6. If the complainant requests an oral hearing before the employment policy officer, deputy employment policy officer, or someone designated by either of them, the hearing officer shall:

(a) Hold an informal hearing at a convenient time and place.
(b) Take an adequate transcript or agreed summary.

(c) Produce any witnesses under the agency's jurisdiction.
(d) Insure the rights of confrontation and cross examination.

(e) Prior to the hearing make available to the complainant, his counsel, or representative, the entire investigative report or a concise and accurate summary of the facts pursuant to his complaint, and upon which the employment policy officer relied in reaching a decision, together with a statement of the reasons for his action in denying the claim of the complainant. (f) Make his proposed findings and recommended conclusions upon the basis of the record before him.

7. The head of the department or agency, or his designated representative, shall make the final decision in the disposition of the case. Where the head of the department or agency, or his designated representative, has referred the case to the executive vice chairman for review and advisory opinion, such final decision may be made only after receipt of the recommendations of the executive vice chairman. Further, such final decisions shall be reconsidered whenever reconsideration is recommended or ordered by the executive vice chairman.

8. If the final decision of the head of the department or agency is a finding of no discrimination, the complainant shall be informed of such decision, and of his right to request a review of the decision by the executive vice chairman of the President's Committee.

9. In all cases, the employment policy officer shall submit a report of disposition of the complaint to the executive vice chairman, and said report shall contain the following:

(a) A copy of the complete case record if requested by the executive vice chairman.

(b) A summary of the complete case record, which shall include the following:

(1) The name and address of the complainant.

(2) The date on which the complaint was filed with or referred to the agency, and, where the complaint was filed with the agency, the name and title of the officer with whom it was filed.

(3) A summary of the complaint indicating the specific type or types of discrimination alleged.

(4) A summary of the results of any appraisal of employment practices and the significant facts disclosed by the investigation and any hearing.

(5) A statement describing disposition of the complaint. If the complaint was withdrawn, the reason for withdrawal should be included. (6) The date of disposition of the complaint.

10. All parties shall have the right to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel, or by other qualified representatives at any time during the processing of a complaint.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES

As of January 12, 1962, the committee had a record of 897 complaints filed with it or directly with the Federal agencies concerned in which discrimination had been alleged on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin. Thirtyfive agencies have been named in these complaints, but 12 of the 35 have received only one complaint. Understandably, there seems to be a correlation between the size of the agency and the number of complaints received, since the

Post Office Department and the three Defense agencies (Army, Navy, and Air Force) have received by far the greatest number of complaints. The Department of Commerce and the Veterans' Administration rank next.

As of January 12, 1962, 280 complaints had been closed. A review of these reveals that corrective action had been taken by the agencies in 83 cases (29.9 percent). The type of discrimination alleged and the personnel action involved for these 83 cases is set forth below:

[blocks in formation]

e

e

T

This compares with a total of 1,053 complaints closed for a 6-year period between January 18, 1955, and December 31, 1960, by our predecessor, the President's Committee on Government Employment Policy, of which a total of 173, or 16.4 percent resulted in corrective action.

The term "Other" under the column headed "Personnel action" includes a multitude of problems encountered by employees, such as the use of derogatory terms, lack of use of the courtesy titles of Mr., Mrs., etc., poor supervisory-employee relations, lack of communication, inconsistent assignments, lack of assignments to training courses, admonishments, etc.

The type of corrective action has varied from the appointment, or promotion, of the person who made the complaint, to more sweeping correctives, such as measures to improve the relationship between supervisors and employees and to improve communication generally within the agency. Where derogatory terms have been used, or when supervisors have failed to use the courtesy titles, they have been advised of the necessity for correcting the situation.

In one large Federal agency in Chicago employing a great number of Negroes in low-grade positions, the investigation of a complaint resulted in the appointment of Negro supervisors for the first time. The charges against the complainant which would have resulted in her removal were dropped for lack of sufficient evidence, supervisors were trained in management-employee relations, better communications between employees and supervisors up to and including the district director were established, and the supervisors were advised that the office rules were to be applied impartially to all employees.

Some of the corrective actions which applied primarily to the individual complainant are rather interesting. There was the case of the American citizen of Italian ancestry who was removed from his position in an oversea establishment of a Defense agency. His complaint of discrimination was found to be valid and the removal action was withdrawn and measures instituted to make certain that there would be no further discrimination at the installation.

Then there was the case of the parts and equipment cleaner who had to be reassigned as the result of a reduction in force. He alleged that he was assigned to the position of railroad track maintenance man which exceeded his physical capabilities. At the time of the reassignment, his medical records indicated he had no physical limitations. As a result of his complaint, he was given an allfactor physical examination. On the basis of the information resulting from that examination, he was found to be physically unqualified for the position and was reassigned to the less strenuous duties of meat wrapper at the same pay and grade.

In another case, the complainant, a Caucasian, was a member of the Church of Theola. He alleged that there was an improper discussion of this and other personal matters in connection with his referral for a higher grade position, as a result of which he did not receive the promotion. As a result of the investigation of his complaint, the supervisor who initiated the conversation, and the supervisor of the vacant position who later questioned the employee regarding these matters, were issued written reprimands for their statements and questions. The complainant was promoted while the complaint was pending.

In another case several equipment specialists alleged that because of their race they were not afforded equal opportunity with white employees to attend provisioning conferences, which resulted in lesser qualifications for promotion purposes. As a result of the investigation of the complaint, one of the complainants was promoted, another was assigned to a provisioning conference, and disciplinary action was taken against the supervisor concerned.

It should be noted that in the latter two cases some disciplinary action was taken against the supervisors involved. Disciplinary action against supervisors has varied in accordance with the specific circumstances in each case. In one such case, as the result of the complaint, one dietician resigned, one supervisor was transferred, and one employee was separated in a disciplinary action.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY-GOVERNMENT

The present administration, committed to the policy of equal employment opportunity in Federal employment and profiting by the experience of the previous committees, not only expanded the powers given this Committee, but, even more important, vigorously pushed the realization throughout Government that this administration and this Committee are sincere and serious in their intention and desire to achieve the goal of equal opportunity in Government employment.

While complaint processing necessarily has occupied a considerable share of Committee time and attention during the first 9 months of operation, emphasis has been placed on programs aimed at developing long-range guarantees of nondiscriminatory employment practices. These include:

The first complete survey of employment in executive agencies to determine the status of minority group personnel.

Detailed results of the survey have not been made public but will be used as a benchmark for measuring progress. In addition, the survey provided a basis for self-analysis by responsible agency officials and enabled the Committee to spot trouble areas where immediate and drastic revision of personnel practices were needed. A special spot check survey of 15 agencies is now underway and another Government-wide survey will be made in June.

Conferences with administrative officials, both in Washington and in the

field.

These conferences serve the dual purpose of emphasizing the fact that the Committee means business and of providing a forum for discussion of problems and development of methods for achieving program goals. Seven regional conferences have been held and others are scheduled in the remaining Civil Service Commission regions of the country. Status reports and followup meetings from each region 6 months following the conference (and periodically thereafter) will enable agency officials and the Committee to maintain a constant check on improvements being made.

Development of capability within agencies.

Employment policy officers (the agency official responsible for carrying out the equal employment policy) and personnel officials in Washington have participated in training programs. Special training programs also are being undertaken in various agencies and field installations. It is our goal to reach and to teach every individual responsible for administration of the equal-opportunity policy. Moreover, some agencies either are assigning full-time personnel or are employing specialist personnel to carry out the program. (The Post Office Department, for example, is employing a specialist in each of its regions.)

Improved personnel practices.

The fact that this Committee received approximately 850 complaints in its first 9 months compared with around 1,050 received by the former Committee in 6 years caused responsible agency officials to take a new look at their supervisory and personnel practices. In a number of instances, overall changes have resulted, thus benefiting not only individual complainants but all employees. This type of cooperation from agencies is in large measure responsible for the Committee being able to report corrective action taken in about 30 percent of the cases so far processed to completion. This compares with a rate of 16.47 during the previous Committee's 6 years of operation.

As with any other organization, we have had to clearly define our functions and responsibilities in seeing to it that the Executive order is carried out. We have not gone into the field of recruitment or placement since we feel our function is that of a coordinating agency responsible for building a team of people

to work toward the goal of equal employment opportunity. In our 9 months of operation we are aware that we have only scratched the surface in achieving this end. While continuing with the activities we have described above, we are also planning future activities which will include the following:

A request to all agencies that a strong statement on policy be issued and sent to all employees; also that supervisors be asked to sign a pledge of fairness endorsing in writing the statement of policy made by the agency head.

A nationwide meeting, in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission, with college presidents, and representatives of minority groups to stress that this administration is committed to a program of equal employment opportunity, that students should be encouraged to train and apply for Federal employment with the assurance that they will be considered on the basis of their qualifications, and that the standards of college curriculums should be raised to more adequately equip graduates to compete for top Government positions.

Meetings with agency heads and employment policy officers of the smaller agencies for the purpose of discussing the program of the Committee and how they can implement it in their own agencies. Statistics from major agencies would be reviewed at such meetings in an effort to identify weak spots and suggest programs for improvement. Reports on results would be requested of these agencies.

APPENDIX F

REPLIES TO ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION

CITY OF AURORA, ILL., December 6, 1961.

In re statement of Dr. Lucien H. Holman of Joliet, Ill., State president of the Illinois conference of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, before the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, October 22, 1961.

Mr. JAMES ROOSEVELT,

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor,

Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: I have just received a copy of the report of the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, on October 22, 1961.

I am quite disturbed by the report of Dr. Lucien H. Holman of Joliet, Ill., State president of the Illinois conference of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I refer to paragraph 3, page 1 of the report. The report reads as follows:

"Further evidence to weaken the committee is the attack upon Mr. Earl B. Dickerson by the mayor of Aurora, and others. To say that Mr. Dickerson is a Communist is an attack upon the NAACP itself. President Kennedy has expressed his confidence in the NAACP by using in his administration the president of our board and the head of our legal defense department. It is well known among the people of Aurora the dislike the mayor of Aurora has for the NAACP and rightly so because we have exposed the discrimination and bigotry that exist in that community. Mr. Dickerson is a member of long standing of our national executive board and a respected businessman. The FBI would have exposed him long ago if this was not true. I myself was called a Communist by a radio announcer in Aurora because we exposed evidence of police brutality on the police force."

As representative of the people of Aurora, I am naturally upset by what apparently is an ill-considered, unsubstantiated and untrue attack on the people of the city of Aurora including myself. We believe that Dr. Holman's attack is totally unfounded and we believe that these statements do not represent the opinion of any class within our community.

The personal attack of Dr. Holman upon me arising from an alleged statement by me concerning a Mr. Earl B. Dickerson is likewise unfounded. It is my hope that this statement was made in ignorance rather than maliciously. I do not know Mr. Dickerson, I have never met Mr. Dickerson, I have never made any public comments concerning Mr. Dickerson and in fact I was not aware of the name Earl B. Dickerson until after the statement of Dr. Holman made to you on October 22, 1961.

« AnteriorContinuar »