Memorandum on Conference with Navy Department Regarding Norris Stamping and Manufacturing Company, Los Angeles, California

To:   Mr. Will Maslow
Director of Field Operations

From:   Clarence M. Mitchell
Associate Director of Field Operations

Subject  Conference with Navy Department re Norris Stamping and Manufacturing Company, Los Angeles, California, 12-BR-1350

Date  March 13, 1945

On the above date I met with Captain George Keller, Head of Personnel Relations Branch, Shore Establishments and Civilian Personnel Division, and Lieutenant Paul Herzog of the Labor Relations office in the Navy Department, to discuss the Norris Stamping Company.1

Captain Keller expressed some concern about the fact that a Naval Inspector had gone into the Norris Stamping Company in connection with a complaint of discrimination. He agreed that FEPC was not to blame for this in that we had properly talked with the Commandant of the Naval District, Lt. Commander Fox. Captain Keller expressed the fear that Naval Inspectors would not be as sympathetic on matters of this kind as they might be. He also stated that the Navy Department has, in his opinion, one sanction only that it can apply in cases where contractors refuse to comply with Executive Order 9346. This sanction is cancellation of contract, he stated. Naturally the Navy Department would not consider the application of this sanction, Captain Keller said, unless the Committee had made a formal finding of discrimination. I pointed out that in the Norris Stamping case we were seeking an adjustment without the necessity of a hearing and we feel that the Navy Department could persuade the employer to comply with the clause in the contract prohibiting discrimination.

Lieutenant Herzog also pointed out that the Army has a major interest in the Norris Stamping Company according to information he received in a long distance call to Lt. Commander Fox. However, Captain Keller said that this would not prohibit the Navy Department from reminding the contractor that he should comply with the non-discrimination clause.

The Navy officials expressed an interest in seeing copies of actual 510 reports submitted by the WMC and also asked certain additional information on the case which we did not have in the file. I agreed to request the region to submit this information and I sent a teletype for it on March 13.

At my request Lieutenant Herzog checked with the Bureau of Ships on the status of our request for action on the Mingledorff Shipbuilding case, 7-BR-493, Savannah, Georgia. The Bureau of Ships informed him that a letter had been sent to a Navy representative at the company concerning the non-discrimination clause in the contract. No reply has come in as yet however.

During the course of our conversation Lieutenant Herzog asked whether FEPC wanted the Navy Department to make determinations of whether discrimination had occurred in a given company. I informed him that we did not wish the Navy Department to make such determination[s] but we did desire action in assisting with compliance after FEPC had determined that there is discrimination. I reminded him, however, that the Executive Order applies to all government agencies and that the Navy Department as a contracting agency does have an obligation to see that the requirements of the Executive Order are followed by its contractors.

He (Lieutenant Herzog) asked whether FEPC finds that the new operating agreement affecting shore establishments is worthwhile. I told him that in general it appeared to be an improvement over some of our previous relationships but some regional offices still feel critical of certain aspects of the agreement. I mentioned Mr. Rutledge’s complaint about the Navy’s policy of denying FEPC representatives access to certain witnesses for and against the complainant. I suggested that possibly Lieutenant Herzog and Captain Keller would like to come to FEPC for a talk on our general working relationships at some time in the future. Lieutenant Herzog seemed eager to do this and I shall try to arrange a small meeting during the regional directors’ conference with Lieutenant Herzog and Messrs. Kingman, Lawson, Fleming, and Dodge, who have the most frequent contacts with Naval Shore Establishments.

On the whole I thought that the conference was friendly and, although I do not necessarily believe that it will result in a settlement of the Norris Stamping case, it does give us a fifty-fifty chance on this particular complaint.

MS: LH, DI, HqR84, Correspondence Relating to Cases. (L–S) Norris Stamping Co.

[1] In 3/45 (exact date on microfilm copy of teletype is smudged), Mitchell told Johnson:

Re Norris Stamping 12-BR-1350, employing 1874 no non whites. ES-510 August 15, 1944 charges company refused to employ Negroes on production work. Plant has contracts with army and navy for shell cases and ammunition. Regional Office of FEPC, local army and navy officials unable to get relaxation of discriminatory hiring practice. Company states it will not hire Negroes but may reconsider its position if given “directive from higher authority.” Case sent to DFO March 9, 1945 with recommendation that hearing be held. (HqR3, Office Files of George M. Johnson. M.)

Mitchell said the conclusion of a War Department official with whom he had spoken was that Norris would not “willingly hire Negroes.” Mitchell to Hubbard, memorandum, 4/23/45, HqR84, Correspondence Relating to Cases. (L–S) Norris Stamping Co. See Hunt’s correspondence to Johnson in HqR5, Office Files of A. Bruce Hunt.

For further action regarding this company—which began major hiring cutbacks before significant progress could be made, thus rendering a hearing useless—see 3/20, 3/22, 4/12, 4/23, 8/17/45.