UNITED STATES BY CLARK v. LOCAL 189, UNITED P. & P., AFL-CIO, CLC

• Decision Date: 26 June 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 68-205.
• Citation: 301 F. Supp. 906
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America by Ramsey CLARK, Attorney General v. LOCAL 189, UNITED PAPERMAKERS AND PAPERWORKERS, AFL-CIO, CLC; United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, CLC: and Crown-Zellerbach Corporation.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

301 F. Supp. 906

UNITED STATES of America by Ramsey CLARK, Attorney General v. LOCAL 189, UNITED PAPERMAKERS AND PAPERWORKERS, AFL-CIO, CLC; United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, CLC: and Crown-Zellerbach Corporation.

Civ. A. No. 68-205.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division.

June 26, 1969.

Ramsey Clark, U. S. Atty. Gen., David L. Rose, Robert T. Moore, Kenneth L. Johnson and Dennis F. Gordon, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis C. LaCour, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for the United States.

Richard B. Sobol, New Orleans, La., George Cooper, New York City, Rita Murphy, Newark, N. J., Collins, Douglas & Elie, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-intervenors.

Warren Woods, McInnis, Wilson, Munson & Woods, Washington, D. C., C. Paul Barker, Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meunier, New Orleans, La., for defendant unions.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, John Vardaman, Jr., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., Michael J. Molony, Jr., Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, La., for Crown-Zellerbach Corp.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

HEEBE, District Judge.

The United States instituted this action on January 30, 1968. The complaint sought, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from violating the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), and from interfering with or violating the implementation of Executive Order 11246 forbidding racial discrimination in employment opportunities by government contractors.

On March 26, 1968, 282 F.Supp. 39, this Court decided the two following issues submitted to it by joint stipulation of all parties pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

A. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the job seniority system which was in effect at the Bogalusa paper mill prior to February 1, 1968, was unlawful?

B. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what is the necessary or appropriate standard or guidelines for identifying the seniority of employees for purposes of promotion or demotion?

The Court ruled that the job seniority system was discriminatory and unlawful and then ordered the defendants to abolish forthwith the job seniority system and to establish a system of "mill seniority" in those cases where one or more of the competing employees is a Negro employee hired prior to a certain date.

The remaining issues in this case were reserved for trial beginning April 30, 1968. All counsel by stipulation agreed that the following was a complete list of the issues to be submitted to the Court for its determination at this second hearing:

a) What is the affected class or classes of employees, if any, who may have suffered from discrimination on the grounds of race in assignments, transfers, promotions or demotions?

b) Whether the requirement that an employee in the affected class hold a job on a permanent basis for a specified period of time after he is qualified before he is eligible for promotion to a permanent opening higher in his line of progression is lawful; and if so, for what period for each job?

c) Whether a member of the affected class or classes is entitled by law to promotion, on the basis of the applicable seniority standard for permanent vacancies, more than one job slot in the line of progression above his present job, if the intermediate job or jobs do not afford any training necessary for proper performance in the higher job slot either because the training in the intermediate job or jobs is unrelated to any job higher in the line of progression, or because the training in the intermediate job or jobs would not add significantly to the skills already acquired; and if so, how the class of intermediate jobs which do not afford any training necessary for proper performance in the higher job slots is to be identified?

d) Whether an employee in the affected class or classes is entitled by law to enter certain lines of progression at a point above the established entry point?

e) Whether an employee in the affected class is entitled by law to bid for a permanent job opening in a job slot more than one slot above his present job where, through temporary assignment to the intermediate job, he has complied with the applicable residence requirement for that job?

f) Whether assignments from the Extra Board were unlawfully made on the basis of race subsequent to the merger of the Extra Boards in May 1964; and if so, what relief is appropriate?

g) Whether Negro employees who, on the basis of race, were assigned to jobs not in lines of progression, or to jobs in short lines of progression with relatively low paying rates, are entitled as a matter of law to relief; and if so, what relief is appropriate?

h) Whether the law requires the merger of Local 189 and Local 189A; and if so, what terms are appropriate?

i) Whether the three senior Negro employees in the job slot of Wood Unloader-Chain (Lorrain Crane) in the Wood Room were unlawfully induced to sign waivers which had the effect of making them junior to 11 white employees in the space of three weeks; and if so, what relief is appropriate?

j) Whether employees in the Utilities Department were unlawfully subjected to different requirements based upon their race, to qualify for the job of Boiler Room Helper; and if so, what relief is appropriate?

k) Whether the trainee program, in effect at the Crown paper mill from 1959 to December 1965, operated to discriminate unlawfully against Negro employees; and what relief is appropriate?

In accordance with the stipulation by all the parties hereto, trial was held in this Court commencing April 30, 1968, on all of the remaining issues as described immediately above. The Court now considering the three sets of Stipulation of Facts filed herein, the evidence elicited at the trial, and the briefs and memoranda filed by all counsel, and the entire record herein, now makes and files its:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1.

This suit was instituted by plaintiff, United States of America, seeking relief for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and for interference with the implementation of Executive Order 11246 forbidding racial discrimination in employment opportunities by government contractors. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

2.

Defendant, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, with principal offices in San Francisco, California. Crown is engaged in the manufacture of lumber and paper products. A division of Crown maintains and operates a pulp and paper mill in Bogalusa, Louisiana. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

3.

Defendant Crown is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec. 701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

4.

Since at least 1961, Crown has supplied materials under government contracts and subcontracts which contain equal employment opportunity clauses similar to, or the same as, those appearing in the Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 10925, to the extent required by those orders. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

5.

Defendant International United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, CLC (hereinafter "the International" or "UPP") is the certified collective bargaining representative of the employees at Crown's Bogalusa Mill, with the exception of approximately 40 white employees who are represented by a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; UPP's principal office is in Albany, New York. It maintains an office in Monroe, Louisiana. (Stipulation of facts dated March 19, 1968).

6.

UPP maintains two local unions for its members at the Bogalusa Mill. All white members belong to the defendant Local 189 of UPP (hereinafter "Local 189"). All Negro members belong to plaintiff-intervenor Local 189A of UPP (hereinafter "Local 189A"). (Stipulation of facts dated March 19, 1968).

7.

UPP, Local 189 and Local 189A are labor organizations engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec. 701(d) (e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (d) (e). (Stipulation of facts dated March 19, 1968).

8.

Plaintiff-intervenor David Johnson, Sr., is a Negro employee at the mill in Bogalusa. He is also President of Local 189A and has been employed at Crown's mill in Bogalusa since 1952. At the time of the trial, he was a Boiler Room utility man in the Utilities Department.

9.

Plaintiff-intervenor Anthony Hill is a Negro employee at Crown's Bogalusa Mill where he has been employed since 1952. At the time of the trial Hill was a utility man in the Recovery Room. He is also a member of Local 189A.

10.

Prior to May 17, 1964, certain jobs in the mill were restricted to white employees or members of Local 189. The remaining jobs were restricted to Negro employees or members of Local 189A. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

11.

The jobs restricted to white employees were generally the higher paying jobs in the mill, while the jobs restricted to Negro employees were generally lower paying and less desirable jobs. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

12.

Prior to May 17, 1964, two separate labor Boards (hereinafter "Extra Boards") were maintained to which newly hired employees were assigned. One of the Extra Boards was restricted to white employees; the other to Negro employees. White applicants for employment were hired on the basis of vacancies on the white Extra Board (i. e., the Extra Board within the jurisdiction of Local 189) and were assigned to that Board. Negro applicants for employment were hired on the basis of vacancies on the Negro Extra Board (i. e., the Extra Board within the jurisdiction of Local 189A) and were assigned to that Board. (Stipulation of facts, March 19, 1968).

13.

Employees on the ...