Unions and the Negro CommunityAuthor(s): Herbert HillSource: Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Jul., 1964), pp. 619-621Published by: Cornell University, School of Industrial & Labor RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2520620 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 12:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cornell University, School of Industrial & Labor Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Industrial and Labor Relations Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.129 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS

Unions and the Negro Community

RAY MARSHALL'S article in the January issue entitled "Unions and the Negro

Community" is a thoughtful contribu- tion on a matter of increasing impor- tance. However, it is to be regretted that some important errors of fact and ques- tionable interpretations of available data seriously mar Professor Marshall's essay. I submit this comment because the issue of employment discrimination and trade union racial practices is emerging as a major question for the entire country.

In writing about the case of Ernest Holmes against Local 10 of the Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union before the New York State Com- mission for Human Rights, the agency that administers the state's fair employ- ment practices statute, Marshall states: "After three days of hearing, the charge against the ILGWU was withdrawn on the basis of a joint stipulation under which the union agreed to continue its non-discrimination policies." The com- plaint against the union was withdrawn only after the ILGWU finally agreed to assist Ernest Holmes in securing employ- ment, in gaining training experience as an apprentice cutter, and pledging that he would be admitted into the union.

An examination of the joint stipula- tion between Ernest Holmes as com- plainant and the respondent union, in case number C-7580-61 before the New York State Commission for Human Rights, sustains this view. Representa- tives of the NAACP were consulted by

attorneys for the Commission in the formulation of the agreement, and as one of those directly involved in these discussions I am forced to correct the im- pression left by Professor Marshall. In the stipulation the union agrees to "... exercise its good offices in assisting the complainant to become a qualified cut- ter and to gain admission to membership in the union as and when he becomes a qualified cutter and becomes eligible for membership in the union."

This is precisely what the State Com- mission had ordered the ILGWU to do a year before when a finding of "prob- able cause" was issued by the investiga- tion commissioner. I quote from the New York Times report of July 2, 1962 headlined "Union Told to Get Job for A Negro": A garment cutters' union has been or- dered by the State Commission for Hu- man Rights to arrange for employment of a Negro at union rates commensurate with his skill and to admit the Negro into union membership if his work is satis- factory. The Times story also states: With regard to the union, the decision found that the evidence raises serious doubt as to its good faith to comply with the State Law Against Discrimination in the matter of this complaint; and that there was "probable cause" to credit the allegations of the complaint.

On September 14, 1962, Ruperto Ruiz, investigating commissioner, New York State Commission for Human Rights, in

619

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.129 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

620 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW

a letter to Local 10's attorney stated that the Commission had repeatedly requested and for a period of eight months tried to obtain data per- tinent to a resolution of the charges of discrimination against the Amalgamated Ladies Garment Cutters Union-Local 10. These efforts were unsuccessful. The failure of representatives of that local to cooperate in the investigation, despite their promises to do so, left me no al- ternative but to find "probable cause to credit the allegations to the complaint."

The point is that the charge against the union was withdrawn not because, as Marshall says, "the union agreed to continue its nondiscrimination policies," but because after a year's delay, it agreed to do what the Commission requested in its original finding of "probable cause" and what Mr. Holmes and the NAACP asked the ILGWU to do in the first in- stance. There is mention of the union's "nondiscrimination policies" in the stip- ulation, included at the insistence of lawyers for the union, but it is clearly not the basis for the agreement.

For "face-saving" purposes, the ILGWU has tried very hard to give the impression in the pages of its monthly publication, Justice, and elsewhere that it was exonerated by the state antidis- crimination agency but the facts will in- dicate otherwise. It is in this light that the union's irate demand for an investi- gation of the Commission referred to by Marshall and mentioned briefly in the pages of Justice and then quickly for- gotten must be understood.

I believe it is of some significance to note that this was not the first encounter by the ILGWU with the New York State antidiscrimination agency. Eighteen years ago the ILGWU entered into an agreement with the New York State Commission Against Discrimination (the predecessor to the State Commission for

Human Rights) that it would not bar Negroes, Spanish-speaking or other per- sons from membership in the all-Italian locals (Elsie Hunter vs. Agnes Sullivan Dress Shop, September 4, 1946). This was an action brought by a Negro member of Local 22 who was barred from higher paying jobs controlled by Local 89, an Italian local. Today, eighteen years later, not a single Negro or Spanish-speaking person holds membership in the two Italian locals which have control of some of the highest paying jobs in the indus- try, and no action has been taken to com- ply with the state law forbidding such practices.

In referring to my testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor on the matter of racial practices in the ILGWU, Marshall states that I "was stopped by committee members..." This is simply not true. I was frequently interrupted and there were some heated exchanges between members of the Com- mittee and me, as well as among the Committee members themselves, but I was permitted to give my entire testi- mony. The complete text of my testi- mony on the lack of internal democracy and on racial discrimination within the ILGWU appears in the January 31, 1963 issue of the Congressional Record, House pp. 1496-1499.

Marshall characterizes the NAACP's effort to secure the decertification of anti- Negro trade unions by the National Labor Relations Board as a failure. On the basis of recent developments, this judgment must be regarded as ill-found- ed. On February 4th, 1964, an NLRB trial examiner ruled that Negroes who are required by their unions to join racially segregated locals and to work under union contracts that discriminate, can have those unions found guilty of unfair labor practices. This development

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.129 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS 621

significantly sustains the NAACP's ap- proach in this matter. Civil rights attor- neys throughout the country agree that this recent ruling involving the Inter- national Longshoreman's Association in Brownsville, Texas, is an important step forward in the association's long fight against racial discrimination by trade unions.

Furthermore, the recommendation by an NLRB trial examiner that the certifi- cation of the Independent Metal Work- ers Union be revoked at the Hughes Tool Company in Houston, Texas because of discriminatory racial practices, which Marshall refers to, is now before the Board and we anticipate that it will be sustained by the full NLRB. Such ac- tion will be an historic victory for Negro workers. The NAACP has cases now pending in state and federal district courts and before the NLRB in an at- tempt to develop a body of labor law that will eliminate discriminatory prac- tices within organized labor and by em- ployers. This will establish a new stand- ard of responsibility by trade unions to represent all workers within their juris- diction fairly and equitably and without regard to considerations of race and col- or. New cases will be initiated in state and federal courts in addition to com- plaints before the NLRB on behalf of aggrieved Negro workers in the near future. At the very least, it is certainly premature for Professor Marshall to have decided that this effort is a failure.

Increasingly, Negroes are making the same demands upon trade unions to eliminate racist practices as are being made upon all other institutions in American society. The bitter intransi- gence of many major trade unions on racial matters and the unwillingness of the AFL-CIO to take action against the anti-Negro practices of its affiliated

unions have profound implications for the future development of organized labor in the United States.

The "Negro-labor split" referred to by Professor Marshall must be understood within the context of this development. Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the NAACP, in a letter dated October 1, 1962 to Mr. Emanuel Muravchik of the Jewish Labor Committee, states the atti- tude of the Association and I believe generally of the entire Negro Commun- ity on the future of Negro labor coali- tions. Mr. Wilkins writes: When you declare in 1962 that the NAACP's continued attack upon dis- crimination against Negro workers by trade union bodies and leaders places "in jeopardy" continued progress toward civil rights goals or rents the "unity" among civil rights forces, or renders a "disservice" to the Negro worker or raises the question, "Whether it is any longer possible to work with the NAACP" you are, in fact, seeking by threats to force us to conform to what the Jewish Labor Committee is pleased to classify as proper behavior in the cir- cumstances. Needless to say, we cannot bow to this threat. We reject the proposition that any segment of the labor movement is sacrosanct in the matter of practices and/ or policies which restrict employment opportunities on racial or religious or nationality grounds. We reject the con- tention that bringing such charges con- stitutes a move to destroy "unity" among civil rights groups unless it be admitted that this unity is a precarious thing, perched upon unilateral definition of dis- crimination by each member group. In such a situation, the "unity" is of no basic value and its destruction may be regarded as not a calamity, but a blessed clearing of the air.

HERBERT HILL

Labor Secretary National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.129 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:55:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions