Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORP., Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR SIR: We thank you for your letter of January 31, 1962, enclosing a copy of the allegations made by Mr. Clarence A. Laws with regard to Cities Service Refining Corp., in the recent Washington hearings and affording us this opportunity to reply to the same. For your information, Cities Service Refining Corp. was among the first companies in the Deep South and the first in this immediate area to take affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunities to all employees regardless of race, color, or creed. The examination policy referred to in the affidavit submitted by Mr. Laws was adopted by the company for the specific and publicized purpose of furthering the program of the Government Contracts Committee by establishing purely objective minimum standards for employment and upgrading, and the separate restrooms, drinking fountains, etc., referred to therein are simply maintained in compliance with State laws. Moreover, since 1955 the company has undergone no less than three complete investigations under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, the former Government Contracts Committee, and the Military Petroleum Supply Agency, which have not only disproved the general allegations made by Mr. Laws, but have culminated in the company being commended for its cooperation in the Government's program. In this connection the company will always welcome a review of its efforts in this field and constructive criticism and suggestions from any responsible source. but we feel that blanket indictments predicated on hasty conclusions such as those reached by Mr. Laws in this instance serve only to deter the real progress being made in this field. Again thanking you for your consideration in advising us of the events that have recently transpired, we are, Yours very truly, Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, GEORGE L. MATEER, President. UNION ELECTRIC CO., St. Louis, Mo., January 16, 1962. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, MY DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1961, enclosing a copy of the testimony given to the House Special Subcommittee on Labor by Dr. Lucien H. Holman of the NAACP. Union Electric Co. has for many years followed a policy of employing Negroes; and, in some cases, these employees have risen to positions of importance in our organization. For example, for many years, the position of chief chemist was occupied by a Negro, now retired. We have employed and are continuing to employ Negroes into engineering and other responsible positions. Our labor agreements provide for promotion solely on the basis of seniority, ability, and qualifications; and, under this provision, no racial discrimination is, or can be, exercised with respect to such promotions. Dr. Holman in his testimony stated, "The Union Electric Co. in Madison County (Illinois) denies qualified Negro applicants equal job opportunity." What Dr. Holman did not mention is that our properties in Madison County are operated as part of an integrated system, the headquarters of which are in St. Louis. When a job vacancy occurs in any of our local offices (including our Alton office in Madison County), our labor agreement provides that this vacancy be posted for bidding throughout our system, and the vacancy is then filled by the senior qualified bidder. Only rarely does an opportunity occur for such a job to be filled by direct employment from the outside. Recently an opportunity of this kind did arise in our East St. Louis office, and the job was filled by employing a qualified Negro woman. No similar job opening has occurred in our Alton office for some time. Our company enjoys an excellent reputation in this area for its fair employment practices. As evidence of this, I am enclosing copies of recent articles taken from the St. Louis Argus and Sepia, both of which make favorable reference to Union Electric. On April 20, 1960, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in a news article on the annual meeting of the Urban League held at the StatlerHilton Hotel on April 19, reported as follows: "Achievement awards were granted to Mayor Raymond R. Tucker, Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, and Union Electric Co. * * * J. Wesley McAfee, president of Union Electric, accepted the award for his company 'for accepting the challenge of a democratic employment policy and making it work, for demonstrating that race and color are not valid criteria for employment consideration, and thereby supporting the Urban League goal of equal opportunity.' We are continuing a systemwide policy of offering equal job opportunities to qualified individuals without racial or other discrimination. The situation as it exists in any of our small local offices, such as that at Alton, must be examined in the light of this policy. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR SIR: You forwarded a copy of a statement made by Dr. Lucien H. Holman of Joliet, Ill., at a recent hearing before your special subcommittee in which Dr. Holman stated that our firm is engaged in discriminatory employment practices. The Illinois Agricultural Association and its affiliated companies recently moved its principal offices from Chicago, Ill., to Bloomington, Ill. We have approximately 1,100 employees in our Bloomington office. Two hundred and forty-seven employees were with the association and its affiliated companies in Chicago and moved to Bloomington, and approximately 850 employees have been recruited in the Bloomington-Normal, Ill., areas and from other areas in the State. Aside from persons just graduating from high school, we have interviewed about nine persons for each person employed. We have standard tests which are given applicants for employment. We have made a validation study of test scores against performance both in Chicago and in Bloomington. On the basis of these studies we have established certain minimum scores which applicants must make before they are accepted for employment. These scores relate to learning ability, clerical aptitudes, stenographic work, typing, etc., depending upon the position to be filled. The minimum test scores in typing vary considerably depending upon the nature of the work involved. The same is true with respect to our stenographic tests. Prior to July 1. 1961, when the major move of our offices was completed, 11 Negroes had inquired or made application for employment. Two of these were men who came in and asked for an application blank stating they would fill it out and mail it back to us. We have heard nothing further from them. Three women did not qualify because they did not have adequate learning ability. One woman did not qualify because she did not have clerical aptitude. One did not qualify because she was a very poor typist and for some reason did not complete the test battery. One woman was asked to return for testing, an appointment was made, but she did not keep the appointment. One Negro woman applied for clerical work and was employed in our general office where she is in the mimeograph department. One applicant was marginal, meeting the minimum score on learning ability and just barely meeting the minimum score on clerical aptitudes. However, we were interested in obtaining permanent employees. Her husband was establishing a business in Africa and she stated that it was her desire to move as soon as he was established there and she expected that her employment would be only temporary. One applicant who appeared to be qualified on the basis of her experience filed an application in August 1960 but, when called, did not return to take the tests. Since July 1, 1961, we have had the following applicants: One woman applied for kitchen or maid service. Her work experience was entirely in factory work. She was considered with other applicants for a matron's position which was filled by a Negro in July 1961. A second woman applied for a switchboard operator or a typist. Her qualifications did not measure up to any of the minimum standards which we require. One male applicant applied for a position as a janitor. He had experience in custodial work. At the time of his original interview, he stated it would be necessary for him to be in California for at least 3 weeks and for that reason he was not given immediate consideration. In September 1961, he was called for another interview. He has a long service record with Woolworth's and, in addition, is holding another part-time job. There was reluctance on his part to give up his position at Woolworth's. Our position was full time. No job offer was made because of his general reluctance to leave Woolworth's and the fact that we were not certain we would actually be offering an improvement in his situation. In August, one woman who had filed an application earlier and taken tests, was given consideration for a position which it was thought she might fill. However, a check with her two previous employers was not satisfactory. One employer stated she was immature and that her attendance record was below average. The second employer stated that her attendance had been very erratic, that she had taken 2 or 3 days off at a time without explicit reason and had left without notice. She was not employed. Another woman applicant who appeared to be well qualified was not employed as her husband went with the Harlem Globetrotters and she expected to be traveling with him. Another applicant qualified as a file clerk. However, she is married and has four children ages 7, 6, 5, and 12. It did not appear that she would be able to work regularly. Another qualified applicant applied for maintenance work. He was called for his second interview in September following his original interview the latter part of July. The position open involved nightwork. He was not interested in working nights because of other work conflicts. No job offer was made to him. An additional 14 applicants consisting of 10 women and 4 men were not given serious consideration or employed for office positions, both because of lack of qualified skills and learning ability. We now have two Negroes employed in the Bloomington offices, one in the mimeograph department and the other as a matron. We have a Negro employed in Chicago, engaged in adjusting insurance claims and of 32 people employed at our Gateway Grain Elevator in Chicago, 3 or 4 are Negroes. Our personnel people have definite instructions to hire qualified Negroes upon the same basis as any other person. We are not discriminating against Negroes, neither are we hiring persons because they are Negroes regardless of their qualifications. We feel that the charges are entirely unfounded. We do not believe that any effort was made to check the validity of the charges made against us before the statement was presented to your committee. We do appreciate your courtesy in forwarding the statement to us and the opportunity to file this reply to the charges made. Very truly yours, PAUL E. MATHIAS, General Counsel. RICHARDS-WILCOX MANUFACTURING Co., Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: We welcome this opportunity to reply to Dr. Lucien H. Holman's testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, given in Chicago on October 22, 1961. We were unaware that such testimony had been given until you transmitted it to us. The allegation that Richards-Wilcox Manufacturing Co. does not hire qualified Negroes is completely false, and we deny that allegation in its entirety. Richards-Wilcox Manufacturing Co. has approximately 500 employees divided between the factory and the offices and engineering department. We have never discriminated against hiring on account of race, and we do not now so discriminate. Our labor turnover is low and most of our employees, both production and office, have been with us for many years. We are proud of the fact that we have always hired qualified applicants regardless of race, and at the present time have several people of Spanish-American or Mexican ancestry in our organization. The last four advertisements for employees to fill vacancies caused by expansion and retirement contained the express language, "Qualified applicants will be hired regardless of race, creed or color," and it is interesting to note that in response to these advertisements of May 7, July 13, September 24 and November 8, 1961, only one Negro applicant applied for the position of assistant to the purchasing agent of our company. This man was given serious consideration, was offered the position but declined because his job, as a bricklayer in Chicago, paid him more than the position which he was considering with RichardsWilcox. What Mr. Holman did not advise your committee is the fact that out of 19,500odd occupied homes in Aurora, according to the last census, 19,065 are occupied by whites and only 503 by nonwhites of all descriptions. Our Negro population is small. This is again documented by the fact that less than 11⁄2 percent of the graduates of June 1961, of the local parochial and public schools, were Negro. With this small supply of Negro labor available, we fail to appreciate Mr. Holman's lack of candor in his testimony concerning Aurora to your committee. Richards-Wilcox Manufacturing Co. has always obeyed the law and we will continue to do that. We welcome the opportunity of denying Mr. Holman's charges, and we assure you that if there is further data desired by you we would be more than happy to furnish it. Sincerely yours, T. P. FLEMING, Controller and Assistant Treasurer. CHICAGO, ILL., December 5, 1961. Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROOSEVELT: Your form letter dated November 14, 1961, with which was enclosed copy of Dr. Holman's testimony before the Special Subcommittee on Labor, has been referred to me for attention by some of the companies listed on the fifth page of this document, for which I am counsel. The caliber of the presentation and the degree of attention it deserves by your subcommittee should be indicated by the fact that one of the companies named as discrimination against Negroes (Success Mills, Inc., National Stock Yards, Ill.), has no employees of any kind. This is a trade name employed in the brokerage of feed ingredients. The "Pulverized Manure Co., National Stock Yards, Ill." is charged with discriminating against Negro women. All six of the employees are Negroes and it employs no women. The others of my clients listed in this paper are equally clear of Dr. Holman's assertions. The irresponsibilty of such "shotgun" charges can be of no help in furthering the interests of Negroes and can only deter the work of your committee. Respectfully yours, W. E. ANDERLE. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CORP., Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Your letter to our East St. Louis office concerning testimony given at the Chicago hearings of your subcommittee has been directed to me. As you know, Dr. Lucien H. Holman of the NAACP listed our company among those that discriminate against Negro women. In our view, this charge is both unwarranted and untrue. We have only three positions in our entire Illinois operation that are held by women. Negro women have been tested and considered for these positions from time to time. The fact that these three jobs are currently held by Caucasians does not mean we are discriminating against anyone. On the contrary, a large percentage of our company's employees are Negroes and many of them are considered to be among our most loyal and trustworthy people. Sincerely yours, Congressman JAMES ROOSEVELT, R. CLIFTON LONG, Secretary. CORN BELT LABORATORIES, INC., East St. Louis, Ill., November 20, 1961. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR SIR: The allegation made by Dr. Lucien H. Holman on October 22, 1961, before the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor that the Corn Belt Laboratories discriminates against the hiring of Negro women is without foundation. The Corn Belt Laboratories is a very small company having but three women employees. All of the women employed do clerical and secretarial work in our one office. All three of the women presently employed have been with us many years; one being employed in 1945; another in May 1956; and the third in May 1958. Obviously, since Corn Belt has had but three occasions in the past 17 years to hire women, it is difficult to feel that the allegation made is justified. In each case the women selected were hired based on their qualifications and experience and not upon their race, color, or creed. Respectfully yours, EDWARD S. BOTT, Executive Vice President. AMERICAN OIL CO., Hon. JAMES ROOSEVELT, Wood River, Ill., December 4, 1961. Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROOSEVELT: Thank you for giving us, by your letter of November 14, an opportunity to answer Dr. Lucien Holman's unfounded charges about our refinery here in Wood River. Our official company policy, set out in "Employee Relations Principles" (copy attached), is "to consider each employee on his individual worth without regard to consideration of race, religion, membership in any legitimate organization, personal friendship, and the like." This policy has been adhered to in our hiring, promotion, transfer and other personnel practices at the Wood River refinery. Dr. Holman's charge against us before your committee is puzzling, since he must know that an earlier, similar charge by the NAACP was dismissed after investigation by the Navy Department. This investigation was conducted in November 1960, by Lt. Comdr. H. J. Murray, USN, of the Office of Inspector of Naval Material, Department of the Navy. Lieutenant Commander Murray first looked into a complaint of discrimination in the treatment of two specific job applicants; he found the complaint had no support. He then broadened his inquiry to embrace all of our employment and promotional practices at Wood River. During this inquiry the employment careers of Negroes who had worked at our Wood River refinery until their retirement were reviewed; Lieutenant Commander Murray appeared to be satisfied that these men were given equal opportunity for promotions. In March 1961, Lieutenant Commander Murray returned to the refinery and suggested that we give the Alton office of the U.S. Employment Service official notice of our policy of nondiscrimination. This we did in a letter of March 16, 1961, a copy of which is attached. We ourselves did not receive a copy of Lieutenant Commander Murray's formal report on his investigations. He assured us, however, that if we did not hear |