United States by Clark v. Local 189, United P. & P., Afl-Cio, Clc

301 F. Supp. 906, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,032, 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 820
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedJune 26, 1969
DocketCiv. A. 68-205
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 301 F. Supp. 906 (United States by Clark v. Local 189, United P. & P., Afl-Cio, Clc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States by Clark v. Local 189, United P. & P., Afl-Cio, Clc, 301 F. Supp. 906, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,032, 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 820 (E.D. La. 1969).

Opinion

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 af *909 ford 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).

*910 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Watkins v. Scott Paper Co.
530 F.2d 1159 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
BROTH. OF RY. CLERKS v. State by Balfour
229 N.W.2d 3 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1975)
Rogers v. International Paper Co.
510 F.2d 1340 (Eighth Circuit, 1975)
Bush v. Lone Star Steel Company
373 F. Supp. 526 (E.D. Texas, 1974)
Taylor v. Armco Steel Corporation
373 F. Supp. 885 (S.D. Texas, 1973)
Sanders v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n
473 F.2d 244 (Second Circuit, 1972)
United States v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
460 F.2d 497 (Fourth Circuit, 1972)
Williams v. New Orleans Steamship Association
341 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Louisiana, 1972)
United States v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
334 F. Supp. 976 (S.D. Texas, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 F. Supp. 906, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2738, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10614, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,032, 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-by-clark-v-local-189-united-p-p-afl-cio-clc-laed-1969.