involved in at least one successful conciliation settlement: a majority were also involved in one or more unsuccessful conciliation efforts. Interviews were structured to insure consideration of the complete set of issues related to determination of minority employment opportunities. Using open-ended questions, the interviews sought to establish a broad base of information about the respondent, his employment practices, the relationship of conciliation to these practices, and other factors affecting changes in minority employment. Specific information was developed from the respondent's perspective with regard to the compliance process and the use of conciliation. Those interviewed were chosen to represent major industry sectors and a wide range of alleged discriminatory employment practices (see Table 3-1). Five of the 14 interviews are presented as case studies in the following section. The respondents, representing three manufacturers, one trucking firm, and a retail general merchandise outlet, illustrate in some detail the major forces influencing the outcome of conciliation and its impact on employment. Analysis of the cases, the compliance procedure, the outcome of conciliation, and factors associated with changes in minority employment are contained in the concluding sections of the chapter. Case Studies in Conciliation Retail General Merchandise The firm chosen to represent retail merchandising is located in a suburban shopping center of a small southern metropolitan area and is a branch of a major national chain with home offices in the Northeast. sales consist primarily of variety goods and are limited to the local Its market--a predominantly white suburb whose racial composition is gradually changing from white to black. With 17 employees in February, 1971, the firm typifies many small retail outlets with respect to its management and personnel policies. firm operates within a limited line-staff structure consisting of three supervisory personnel and the store manager, a white woman. Communication within this structure is direct and personal. Management is responsible to district and regional supervision; nevertheless, its personnel policies, including hiring, promotion, and compensation, are for the most part determined locally. Employment involves no specialized skill requirements beyond clerical skills. As suggested by management, most skills can be acquired through on-the-job training. Personnel are grouped into three departments: office, sales, and stock room. The duties, skill requirements (as determined by the employer), and earnings of each job classification are contained in Table 3-2. In 1966 the firm was charged with discrimination on the basis of race by two black women. The charge represented the first and only charge brought against the firm in the period from 1966-1971. It stated that the employer had failed to consider them for employment, a violation of Section 703 (a) (1) of Title VII. The two women testified that they had visited the respondent on a Friday to apply for employment as sales persons. They were allegedly informed that applications were only accepted from Monday through Thursday. After consultation with an equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer of the EEOC, the women appeared at the respondent's on the following Thursday. Again they were refused applications. On this occasion they were allegedly informed that applications were accepted only when vacancies existed. Description of Respondent Job Structure by Job Content, Skill Requirements, The charge was served by the Commission and an investigation begun three weeks after the charge was filed. An interview with the store manager (who was subsequently replaced) by a Commission EEO officer revealed a "very paternalistic attitude" toward blacks and had no satisfactory explanation of the application complaint. Additional investigation revealed that the respondent had accepted applications from whites when no vacancies existed. Approximately one-half of the community's population was black. Yet, only 2 of the 28 employees were black, suggesting a general pattern of discrimination against blacks. A "reasonable cause" finding was returned by the Commission. The conciliation process brought together representatives of the respondent's home office and its attorney, the store manager, and the Commission. As is characteristic of conciliation, the charging parties were not present. Instead, the Commission acted in their behalf. The Commission representative introduced a "suggested" conciliation agreement which was initially rejected. The respondent expressed concern over the size of the back-pay settlement. After a break in negotiations and considerable delay, the respondent finally agreed to settle on the Commission's terms. One Commission representative suggested that the agreement could not have been reached without the charging parties' subsequent threat of civil action. The agreement was signed in 1967, 14 months after the charge was filed. As one of the early conciliation agreements, it was primarily complaint-oriented, although it contained a limited number of general class-oriented terms. The agreementagreement1/ offered: (1) immediate employment to the charging parties, (2) back-pay settlement of $1,300, |