United States v. Virginia Electric and Power Company
| Decision Date | 17 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 638-70-R. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
David L. Rose, Steven B. Glassman, Kurt H. Sorenson, Robert Feder, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for United States.
Jay J. Levit, Stallard, Levit & Atkins, Richmond, Va., for IBEW Locals.
Francis V. Lowden, Jr., Hill B. Wellford, Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., for VEPCO.
This suit was brought by the Attorney General of the United States against Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (IBEW), and Local Unions 216, 220, 279, 655, 699, 905, 980 and 1064, alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Attorney General has moved for a preliminary injunction, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a), asking that three practices of the defendants be temporarily enjoined. These practices are the system of job and departmental seniority, the requirement of a high school education as a prerequisite for advancement of certain employees hired before the date on which those requirements were universally imposed on all employees, and the use of testing as a prerequisite to advancement.
Defendant VEPCO is a Virginia corporation, with its principal office located in Richmond. It does business in a 32,000 square mile area covering portions of Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina.
VEPCO is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) and is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(h). It has approximately 6,053 employees of whom approximately 586 are black.1
Defendant IBEW is an unincorporated association doing business in the State of Virginia, and its principal office is in Washington, D.C. Defendants Local Union No. 216, Harrisonburg; Local Union No. 220, Clifton Forge; Local Union No. 289, South Boston; Local Union No. 655, Charlottesville; Local Union No. 699, Falls Church; Local Union No. 905, Newport News; Local Union No. 980, South Norfolk, and Local Union No. 1064, Richmond; (Locals) are unincorporated associations doing business in Virginia.
A System Council of IBEW Local Unions was established February 1, 1944, by agreement of the Executive Boards of the defendant Locals. It was eventually approved by the IBEW International President March 7, 1944. The primary function of the Council is to represent the Locals in contract negotiations with VEPCO. It also processes certain grievances and other matters specifically referred to it by the Locals or by VEPCO.
The Locals are chartered by the IBEW upon meeting specified IBEW criteria. All bargaining agreements or amendments must be submitted by the Locals to the International President for approval. Failure to secure such approval renders all such agreements or amendments null and void. All agreements between the Locals and VEPCO must recognize that the Locals are a part of the IBEW and all agreements must conform to the IBEW constitution. The System Council is in the same relationship with the IBEW as are the Locals.
At all times material to this action defendant Unions have been the exclusive bargaining representatives for hourly employees of VEPCO with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, working conditions, and other conditions of employment. As of January 1, 1971, there were approximately 2,990 employees in the collective bargaining agreement. Of these, 497 or 16.6% were black. All of the Unions represented by the System Council have entered into a single collective bargaining agreement with VEPCO.
The current collective bargaining agreement became effective April 1, 1967, and was amended with respect to wages on April 1, 1968, April 1, 1969 and April 1, 1970.2 Both current and superseded collective bargaining agreements were signed by the IBEW International Representative and approved by the IBEW International President. Subsequent amendments were approved, as required, by the IBEW constitution, and the IBEW is a party to the collective bargaining agreement.
The collective bargaining agreements in effect during the time material to this action set forth each job classification within the recognized IBEW bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreements also provide for establishment of lines of promotion within each department of VEPCO.
It is clear that it takes several years of training in order to qualify for most of VEPCO's top IBEW bargaining unit jobs. For this reason, VEPCO generally fills those jobs with men trained and developed by VEPCO. This, in itself, is not unreasonable, so long as all qualified employees have the opportunity to reach those levels.
The manner in which these men are trained is that the lines of progression at VEPCO are groups of jobs, usually functionally related, through which employees progress from the entry level job in the line to successively higher paying jobs. There are also some jobs not within progression lines.
VEPCO is divided into eleven geographic districts and three systems which are companywide. Within these eleven districts and three systems there are a total of 31 departments. The departments and numbers of employees are as follows:3
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.
...F.Supp. 230 (S.D.Ala.1972); United States v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 532 (W.D.N.C.1971); United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 327 F.Supp. 1034 (E.D.Va.1971); and Irvin v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 308 F.Supp. 152 (E.D. Ark.1970). The more difficult question now facing the......
-
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company
...1236-1237 (4th Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971); United States v. Virginia Electric and Power Company, supra, 327 F.Supp. 1037; Clark v. American Marine Corp., 304 F.Supp. 603 (E. D.La. The appellants have made a strong showing (1) that t......
-
Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co.
...was not even considered. The defendant Detroit Edison seeks to rely on the district court's citation in United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 327 F. Supp. 1034 (E.D.Va.1971), of the fact that the area served by the utility in that case was 18.6 percent black. But the court in that......
-
Kaplan v. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Emp. and Motion Picture Mach. Operators of U.S. and Canada
...from a collective bargaining agreement has been held to constitute a violation of Title VII. United States v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., 327 F.Supp. 1034, 1042 (E.D.Va.1971). See United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 312 F.Supp. 977, 990--91 (W.D.N.Y.1970), modified relief, 446 F.2d......