MONTHLY REPORT OF THE WASHINGTON BUREAU
October 6, 1952
UNION SHOP IN THE RAILWAY INDUSTRY
The Washington Railroad Terminal has signed a union shop agreement with several unions, including the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen.1 This union still has a provision in its constitution requiring that colored employees join Jim-Crow locals which are under the supervision of white locals. Approximately 400 colored employees at the Terminal are within the jurisdiction of the Carmen.
On their behalf, we have asked the Terminal whether it will dismiss them if they refuse to join the Jim-Crow local. The terminal has replied that,
“I call your attention to Section 4 of the agreement which provides that nothing in the agreement ‘shall require an employee to become or to remain a member of the organization if such membership is not available to such employee under the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member, or if the membership of such employee is denied or terminated for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, the initiation fees, and assessment (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.’ You will note that this provision of the agreement conforms with the provision of the Railway Labor Act as amended to which you refer in the fourth paragraph of your September 24 letter.”
It will be recalled what when the Railway Labor Act was amended to permit union shop agreements in this industry, the NAACP sought the inclusion of language that would provide adequate safeguards against discrimination by unions that deny membership to colored people on the basis of race or shunt them into Jim-Crow locals.2
The first test of the effectiveness of language that Congress did include came in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1950, when some employees of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad refused to join a Jim Crow local set up by the Railway Clerks. When this matter was taken into court by the Baltimore branch, the union promptly stated, under oath, that it would not require colored people to join a separate local as a condition of remaining on the job. The employer also said, under oath, that none of the colored employees faced dismissal because they refused to join a separate local.3
The three plaintiffs in the case are still on the job although they were denied membership in the white local when they applied for it. Meanwhile, two colored men have been admitted to the white local and employees who voluntarily joined the Jim-Crow local are considering the possibility of abolishing their lodge and joining the white local.4
SCHOOL SEGREGATION ON ARMY POSTS
On behalf of complainants from Fort Bliss and Fort Sam Houston in Texas, Fort Sill in Oklahoma, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia, we have asked Secretary Robert M. Lovett of the Department of Defense to abolish the practice of requiring children of colored service personnel to attend schools off the military posts while white children are given schools on the posts usually with transportation, new buildings and hot lunches.5
This practice, which Army officials pretend is done to conform with state laws, is another illustration of how the policy of integration in the Army is being delayed and sometimes even set back by persons in policy making positions who are determined to thwart the President’s program of ending segregation.
U.S. COAST GUARD
The U.S. Coast Guard Station at Curtis Bay, Maryland, has denied proper work experience and promotion opportunities to colored technicians who are skilled in work on Sonar, Loran and Radar. On behalf of these employees, the NAACP is seeking a hearing under the provisions of the Fair Employment Order 9980. Some of the employees report that, in an effort to stall off the investigation, some supervisors are offering chances for promotion to certain workers if they will agree to testify against the complainants who made the first charges. Needless to say, these offers have been rejected.
TELEPHONE COMPANY
Although we have had frequent assurance that it is at work on the problem, the President’s Committee on Government Contract Compliance has not yet broken down the hiring practices of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, operating in Washington and Baltimore, which result in the exclusion of colored operators. Dwight R. G. Palmer, Chairman of the Committee, advises that he is personally working on this problem. Meanwhile, at least twenty new cases have come in against the Company.6
NAVY YARD SEGREGATION
While it is not a problem strictly within the jurisdiction of the Government Contract Compliance Committee, we have placed the matter of segregation in the Norfolk, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina, Navy Yards before the Contract Compliance group. We have done so on the ground that these establishments, as large employers, have an important effect on the policies of private industry. The Navy Yards in question have separate lavoratories, restaurants, and drinking fountains. These practices have been approved by the Secretary of the Navy despite our protests.7
CIVIL SERVICE COMPLAINTS
Approximately twenty-five colored persons who passed a written examination for the job of investigator in the Fourth Region of the Civil Service Commission were disqualified because they “failed” to pass oral examinations.
One question asked on the oral examination was:
“If you were investigating a postmaster in North Carolina, would you accept an invitation from him to go to lunch at the Rotary Club?”
When we filed charges of discrimination on behalf of most of those who were disqualified, the Civil Service Commission and the Fair Employment Board offered to see that the complainants were given a new oral examination. We are awaiting the outcome of this development, but have not withdrawn the complaint.
MS: MP.
[1] See 2/4/53, where Mitchell reported that blacks were finally admitted to the brotherhood.
[2] “Full compliance with the Railway Labor Act as amended in 1950 requires that neither colored people nor white people may be parties to the exclusion of any applicant from membership under the union shop agreement at the Washington Terminal on the basis of race and, thereafter, seek the dismissal of such applicant for failure to join a segregated local [716].” Mitchell’s letter to James Langsen, general chairman, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, 2/12/53, NAACP IX: 196, DLC.
[3] The plaintiffs were James P. Taylor, Howard Taylor, and Charles Blake, all of Baltimore. The lawsuit was filed against the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees as well as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company in the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C. NAACP IX: 197, DLC. See also, among others, 11/5/51.
[4] See also 11/5 and 12/31/52.
[5] See press release, 10/4/52, with letter to Lovett attached, in appendix 1, this vol.; “Negroes Protest Segregation at Ft. Bliss Schools,” El Paso Herald 10/4/52, 1, and collection in NAACP WB-171, DLC; 11/5, 12/3, and 12/31/52; 2/4/53; Watson, Lion in the Lobby 241–42.
[6] See 6/5/52; in appendix 1, this vol., Mitchell’s 6/9/52 statement before the committee; 12/31/52; related materials in NAACP II: A-200, DLC.
[7] See, also, most immediately, 6/5/52, 4/3/53. Mitchell’s letter, 9/18/52, to Robert R. Granville, executive director of the President’s Committee on Government Contract Compliance, further noted that because the Norfolk yard was headquarters for various European companies cooperating with the United States in defending democracy against communism, segregation there posed the danger that “an extremely ugly international incident” could occur if “one of the colored citizens of these European countries” were humiliated while he performed his official duties there. Mitchell’s letter to Granville, 9/18/52, and related materials are in NAACP WB-142, DLC.