Memorandum on FEPC Complaints Involving the International Association of Machinists

In keeping with the suggestion made in your memorandum of July 8, 1944, I have reviewed the files of the central office on cases involving lodges of the International Association of Machinists. In addition, I have obtained material from Regional Directors indicating the nature of cases before them. The following is a presentation of the data, in accordance with the headings given in your memorandum of July 8:¹

I. AREAS IN WHICH NEGROES ARE ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR LIMITATION.

Mr. Edward Lawson, Director of Regions I and II (New York and Boston), has sent in the following report:

“Both in New York State and in New England, Negroes are accepted to membership in the International Association of Machinists without restriction or discrimination. In New York State there are approximately 100 to 150 members of the Machinists Union, and in upstate New York there are about 100 more. In New England there are several hundred, mostly concentrated in the Boston Navy Yard and the Watertown Arsenal. Most of the Negro members of this union in Regions I and II are not full-fledged machinists but are helpers or production workers. However, there is nothing to prevent them from advancing to higher categories of work.

“According to Mr. John Sullivan of the New York Regional Office of the IAM, Negroes are admitted to membership in the IAM here under the regular procedures of the union. He says that there is nothing in the constitution or in the ritual of the union which would exclude a Negro from membership.

“As you may know, the New York State law makes it a penal offense to bar a person from union membership because of his race, creed, color or national origin. The New England states do not have such laws, so far as I know; however, the question of admittance of Negroes to IAM membership has never come up in the New England area, although a large number of the plants there have IAM contracts.”

Lodge 79 of Seattle, Washington, which holds a contract with the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation, has some twenty (20) Negroes who are still active in the union and are entitled to the rights and privileges of full membership, according to Mr. Harry Kingman, Director of Region XII (San Francisco). These colored members were initiated following the 1940 convention of the Internation[al] Association of Machinists. At that time, the local lodge was under the impression that it had the right to initiate such Negro members. Since that time, active interference by the International union has prevented the admission of other Negroes.

The position of the International is set forth in a Request for Further Action Report, dated May 13, 1944, from Mr. Kingman. This report quotes Mr. Eric Peterson, General Vice-President of the International, as follows:

“Our Organization as well as other International and National Labor Unions takes the position that the Fair Employment Practice Committee is without authority to compel Labor Unions to accept for members persons not eligible according to the Organizations’ laws. As long as Lodge No. 79 does not interfere with the employment of Negroes there can be no justification for complaint on the part of the individuals who have been denied membership because of the policy and laws of our organization.”

II. AREAS IN WHICH NEGROES ARE PERMITTED TO WORK ONLY UPON PAYMENT OF A PERMIT FEE.

Lodge 79, which has been previously mentioned, is an appropriate illustration of this procedure. Under the present arrangement, Negroes are permitted to work by paying a fee of $1.25. This is paid on a monthly basis. Mr. Kingman states in his Request for Further Action Report of May 13, 1944, that Lodge 79 allows Negroes to be upgraded without discrimination and, apparently, handles grievances for them. A supplementary memorandum from Mr. Kingman, dated July 27, 1944, states that Mr. Harold Johnson, Assistant Business Agent of Lodge 79, gave him the following information on fees charged Negroes and whites: “Helpers (both Negro permit men and bonafide members of the union), $1.25 per month dues. Negro permit men, however, do not pay an initiation fee. Journeymen (both Negro permit men and bonafide Members of the union), pay $2.00 per month. Negro Journeymen also do not pay an initiation fee.”

In case 12-UR-285, which involves the IAM Aeronautical Mechanics Lodge 751 of Seattle, Washington, Negroes are cleared for work although they are not permitted to full membership. Mr. Kingman gives the following statement on this Lodge:

“Mr. Sullivan, one of the Business Agents for Local 751, stated that his union has two basic categories of dues for its members. These categories are Production Workers, (who are the equivalent of helpers), and Journeymen. The helpers, whether they are Negro permit men or bonafide members, pay $1.50 per month. Journeymen, whether they are bonafide members of the union or permit men, pay $1.75 per month. Negro permit men are not required to pay initiation fees.”

According to Mr. Kingman, the representatives of Lodge 79 and Lodge 751 state that the dues paid by Negro permit men and the bonafide members of the union are “ear marked” for such purposes as per capita payment to the International Association of Machinists, Insurance fund, the Central Labor Council, Washington Machinists Council, and the State Federation of Labor. Negro members are not allowed to participate in nor do they directly receive benefits from any of these. Mr. Johnson of Lodge 79 stated that he would discuss this matter with Mr. Sanvigen, Business Agent, because he “felt that the matter ought to be straightened out,” and that Negroes should not be forced to pay dues “for purposes which are of no benefit to them.”

III. AREAS IN WHICH NEGROES ARE BARRED FROM EMPLOYMENT ALTOGETHER IN SKILLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE IAM.

We have before us case 12-UR-174 against the Machinists’ Lodge 824 of Richmond, California. Mr. Frank Pestana, an examiner on the staff of Region XII, points out that this Lodge refuses to clear Negroes for work at all. Also, we have a teletype from Region XII, dated July 12, 1944, which states that the Lodge has received a communication from Mr. Harvey Brown, President of the IAM, regarding its discriminatory policy. In spite of Mr. Brown’s communication, the Lodge intends to continue its discriminatory practice, according to the regional office of FEPC. The action of this Lodge prevents Negroes from obtaining employment in machinist trades at the following companies: Richmond Shipyards, Rheon Manufacturing Company, American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Company, and the Pacific Enamel Works.

The Philadelphia office (Region III) reports the following complaint, 3-UR-685, which involves Lodge 243 of the Machinists at the A. B. Farquhar Company, York, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Negro employees of the company are refused membership by the union and, further, that said employees are denied upgrading by the company because of “pressure by the union.” Where Negro employees have applied for membership and attempted to pay joining fees, these fees were returned by Lodge 243, according to the regional office. These cases are still being investigated by the regional office.

The Washington office (Region IV) calls attention to case 4-UR-285, which is a complaint involving the Wright Automatic Tobacco Packing Machinery Company at Durham, North Carolina. The case dates back to March, 1942, when the company, in an answer to a letter from Mr. Sidney Hillman of the War Production Board, stated that it had a non-discriminatory policy with regard to hiring. On April 21, 1942, the company stated that it has a contract with Lodge 721 of the IAM, and that, under the interpretation of the contract, Negro workers cannot be employed on production work. The text of the union’s communication, dated April 20, 1942, is as follows:

“In reply to your question of this date, Lodge 721 of the International Association of Machinists admits to its membership only competent, white candidates. It would, therefore, be impossible for your company to employ in the mechanical departments persons of other race than white under the terms of the contract you hold with Lodge 721.

“We trust that the above statement will define our position on this question.”

The letter is signed by Mr. E. W. Donahue, President of Lodge 721, and Mr. J. A. Cardne, Recording Secretary. On November 28, 1943, Mr. Frank Hook, who at that time was Regional Director, and Mr. Joseph H. B. Evans, the present Regional Director, conferred with Mr. Harvey Brown, President of the IAM, on this case. Files in Mr. Brown’s office showed that the local union was asked to withdraw the letter it had written to the company. However, Mr. Brown was unable to produce a reply to the letter sent to the local lodge by the International.

The Dallas office (Region X) reports that Negroes are specifically barred from membership in all railroad lodges of the IAM. A separate Federal charter is provided for Negro employees at the Consolidated Aircraft Company in Fort Worth, Texas. The IAM represents employees at this plant. The Region is currently processing case 10-UR-333, which involves the lodge representing workers of the Texas and Pacific Railroad. The Regional Director states that the issue involves the attempt of the local chairman of the IAM to prevent Negro machinists from performing certain operations on the railroad. The International Representative of the IAM, a Mr. Mulholland, agreed that this action of the lodge was wrong and stated that the local leaders would not interfere with full utilization of Negro workers. It was also agreed in a conference called by FEPC that Negro workers would be allowed to use the union’s bargaining machinery through a separate Negro committee. In the current case, the Texas and Pacific colored employees charge that the agreement reached with Mr. Mulholland is not being adhered to.

IV. THE POSITION OF OFFICIALS OF THE IAM WITH RESPECT TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE US.

The best positions are those of the New England and New York lodges, as set forth by our regional office and mentioned under I. It appears that the sole reason why Negroes are not admitted to Lodge 79 is due to the intervention of the International union. As far back as September 14, 1942, we have a letter from Mr. I. A. Sandvigen, Business Representative of the Lodge, indicating that Negroes are acceptable for full membership.

Lodge 761 feels that any effort to change the ritual so that Negroes may be admitted to membership may result in a split of the IAM.

The attitude of the Lodge in Richmond, California (824) is clearly defiant and non-cooperative. Apparently, the Lodge considers its position buttressed by the action of the International in that the file on case 12-UR-174 contains a letter from Mr. Albert B. Nelson, Business Representative of the Lodge, in which Mr. Nelson states that the January, 1944, issue of the Machinists’ Monthly Journal contains a statement of the policy of the International Organization. Among other things, this statement indicates that the Machinists will not comply with the directives issued by the Committee in the railroad cases.

V. NATURE OF COMPLAINTS WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED.

There are twenty-six (26) active cases against the IAM. These cases include charges against lodges of the IAM in the railway industry, as well as complaints involving shipbuilding and aircraft companies. Some are complaints by individuals, others by groups of persons, and some are reports of discrimination received from USES offices.

Railway complaints charging failure to upgrade because of IAM are:

Other complaints charging failure to hire, upgrade, or admit to membership are:

Complaints charging IAM with attempting to organize a Negro auxiliary:

Since the preparation of this memorandum, it has become apparent that we must negotiate with the Machinists’ Lodge 698 in Detroit, Michigan, if we are to obtain correction of discriminatory practices in the hiring of mechanics for the trucking industry. At present, we do not have a docketed case against this Lodge, but the Detroit office states that officials of the War Manpower Commission have been informed by the union that it will not permit the employment of Negroes as mechanics for the maintenance of trucking equipment. Our office in Detroit has a number of cases in which Negro applicants for mechanical jobs have been turned down. However, Mr. Edward Swan, the Examiner-in-Charge, states that none of these cases shows that the applicants have been told that they cannot be hired because of the policies of the machinists’ union. The Examiner-in-Charge and Mr. William T. McKnight, Director of Region V (Cleveland), plan a conference with officials of Lodge 698 to obtain a statement on the Lodge’s position.²