Memorandum on Telephone Company Cases

I have read with interest Mrs. Cooper’s memorandum of March 7, concerning the telephone company cases. Pursuant to my expressions in the staff meeting on March 7, I am preparing this memorandum so that you may know my position. I have devoted a great deal of time to the telephone cases in general and specifically the cases against the Chesapeake and Potomac Company of Baltimore and the New Jersey Bell Company in Atlantic City.¹

As I understand Mrs. Cooper’s memorandum, three things are up for consideration: First, the argument of the telephone company that applicants with more than two to two and one half years of high school education are not acceptable as operators. By this standard Mrs. Cooper indicates that most of our complainants would be over qualified. Secondly, it is expected that the assistance of community groups will be helpful in getting the local telephone companies to follow the New York pattern and employ Negroes as operators. Thirdly, she suggests that because there may be some changes in the telephone companies’ policies, the cases should be returned to the regions for further processing.

I disagree with all three of these points. It may be that the telephone company has a policy of employing as operators persons with a maximum of two to two and one half years of high school education. However, this has never been advanced by any of the local companies as a reason for refusing to employ colored applicants. In every instance refusal has been based on the alleged possibility of a strike among white operators if Negroes are brought in to work with them. I wish to direct attention to a letter dated December 26, addressed to me by Mr. Andrew P. Monroe, Vice President of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company. In this letter Mr. Monroe states the following on page 2:

“We are not at the present time employing Negroes as telephone operators because we have found that if the same objections to their inclusion in the force had occurred in a group directly engaged in giving telephone service, such as we initially experienced in Camden, (when Negroes were employed as clerical workers.) a serious impairment or interruption of the service would result. . . . However, as indicated in my last letter to Mr. Fleming, dated October 18, 1944, it should be emphasized that ‘this company’s position with respect to employing negroes in the capacity of telephone operator refers entirely to the present situation without implication that our attitude on this subject may not change at some future time.’”

In almost every conference with telephone officials this thought has been expressed on the subject of employing colored women as operators. It was my opinion that some useful purpose would be served if I could have a conference with Mr. Monroe, after the New York experiment was a success. I did not hold this conference with him because his letter clearly indicated that in spite of the success of the New York undertaking, the New Jersey company was not yet ready to move.

So far as assistance from community groups is concerned, the Chesapeake and Potomac file from Region IV is replete with efforts on the part of the Committee to obtain this type of assistance in adjusting complaints. You will recall that at my request Mr. Joseph P. Healey of the Governor’s Commission in Maryland was called to a Committee meeting on August 28, 1944. At that time Mr. Healey offered assistance in the settling of the complaints and expressed the hope that within sixty days he would have something definite to report. It is with considerable regret that I must point to his failure. Mr. Healy has shown no disposition to date which would lead me to believe that he can give any real assistance in settling these cases. I feel that any plan for pulling in other community groups to do FEPC’s job would be destined to a similar failure.

In my opinion the only way to settle these cases is to have a hearing and make a determination of the facts involved. It would be extremely discouraging and I feel a great waste of time, if we sent them back to the regions for processing by the regional director. I recommend that the Committee hold hearings on the New Jersey Bell and Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company cases at its first opportunity.

I believe that I should point out that the Baltimore community has been extremely patient in the telephone cases as well as the Baltimore Transit cases which remain unsettled. This community has great enthusiasm for the work of FEPC and it is regrettable that in spite of numerous complaints we have had no hearings there at all.