Monthly Report of Labor Secretary, May 31, 1949

MONTHLY REPORT OF LABOR SECRETARY

May 31, 1949

 

Fair Employment Testimony

The Labor Secretary appeared before the House Labor Committee this month to testify in favor of FEPC legislation. This occasion provided an opportunity to present information on local conditions which was supplied by branches in twenty-one cities. Although we did not get as many returns from cities as we had hoped for, we were able to make good use of what we received. Reports from some cities were significant enough to warrant special mention. These were Houston, Texas; Richmond, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.1

New Mexico FEPC

Illness of Hobart L. LaGrone, President of the Albuquerque Branch, has prevented an earlier report on the New Mexico FEPC. An excerpt from his letter of May 9 tells the story best.

“The vote on FEPC in the Senate was 13–10 and in the House 25–24, only because we were able to swing by tremendous pressure two of our three legislators in Bernillo County were we able to push the measure through the House. Two hundred telegrams on the desks of our legislators on the showdown date turned the trick.”

The New Mexico FEPC Law takes effect on June 19.

Executive Order 9980

In the April Report, we mentioned the successful settlement of the first case to go to hearing under the Federal Fair Employment Order 9980.2 At the NAACP’s request, Leo Miller, Fair Employment Officer of the Federal Security Agency, has issued a special instruction on fair employment policies. The instruction is based on suggestions made by the Association and the particular case is used as an illustration of how friendly settlement may be obtained. The instruction was sent to the Social Security Administration, the Public Health Service, St. Elizabeths Hospital, the National Institute of Health and ten regional offices of the FSA.

Laundry Workers

Representatives of the Laundry Workers in the District of Columbia have requested the Association’s help in their fight to retain present contracts and organize new plants. Only about three per cent of the 8,000 persons who work in this industry in Washington are organized. More than 90 per cent of these people are colored. The union fears that employers are planning a drive to have them decertified under the procedures of the Taft-Hartley Act.3

AFL Report on Race Clauses

Two years ago, we asked the AFL for a report on the number of unions in the Federation which excluded colored persons by constitutional provisions. At that time, we were advised that five international unions had such provisions. A check this month brings the report that now only one union has this provision in its constitution.4

It is obvious of course that this report must be checked with an impartial source. It is also obvious that the mere elimination of discriminatory phrases from constitutions has not ended or necessarily lessened bad practices. However, it is worthy of note that the AFL made the review of union constitutions before appearing to testify on the FEPC Bill.5

Speaking Engagements

This month the Labor Secretary spoke at the Workers Education Conference at Howard University, the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, and the Chaim Weitzmann Lodge.

MS: NAACP II: A-341, DLC.

[1] See materials on FEPC in NAACP II: A-657, DLC; 5/19/49, Hearings 293–300.


[2] See, most recently, 1/31, 3/4, 4/1, 5/2, 9/30, and 12/21/49, as well as the headnote on the Struggle for a Permanent FEPC.


[3] For most immediately related concerns regarding the Taft-Hartley Act, see 12/20/48, 3/4 and 5/2/49.


[4] In 1947, the AFL unions that barred African Americans by constitution or ritual were the Airline Pilots, Railway Carmen, Railway Mail Clerks, Master Mates and Pilots, and Wire Weavers. Mitchell did not give the name of the only union in 1949 that barred African Americans from membership by constitutional provision. Julius A. Thomas, director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the NUL, told Mitchell that his informant might “be almost right.” What had happened, he said, was that practically all AFL unions, as well as others not affiliated with the AFL, had been forced to change their constitutions to comply with state legislation banning racial discrimination by them. Several that formerly had such provisions had eliminated them for their entire international. But that did not mean that they had ended racial discrimination. The final control in union action rested with the local, and the top AFL leaders consistently had proclaimed that they did not have sufficient jurisdiction to dictate the policies of a local. Mitchell’s letter to Thomas, 6/3/49, and Thomas’s response to Mitchell, 8/3/49, NAACP IX: 215, DLC.

According to Glen R. Atkinson, assistant to George M. Harrison, chair of the Labor Division of the Democratic National Committee, Harrison led a long struggle to alter the constitution of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks to remove “white” as a limitation upon membership. Confirming this information, Mitchell explained to Walter White that the brotherhood also “took action to give regular charters instead of auxiliary charters.” Mitchell said he was not sure whether this action would have effectively eliminated segregation in the brotherhood, “but Mr. Harrison indicated that members of the rechartered local lodges would enjoy the benefits, rights, and privileges of transferring to any other local lodge chartered by the Brotherhood. Atkinson’s letter, 10/6/48, to Edward J. Loge, a copy of which he sent to White; and Mitchell’s memorandum, 11/5/48, to White, both in NAACP IX: 214, DLC.

Apparently, nevertheless, the union in 1949 that still had the constitutional provision barring blacks from its membership was the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, which was at the center of the struggle to desegregate the Washington Railroad Terminal. In 1946, Felix H. Knight proposed that the brotherhood abolish the Jim Crow section of its constitution. But not until February 4, 1953, would Mitchell report that this union finally admitted blacks to its membership. See Mitchell’s query to Knight, 10/8/46, about the attached new release announcing Knight’s proposal, Mitchell’s letter to Knight, 10/8/46, NAACP IX: 215, DLC. See also Northrup, Organized Labor and the Negro which discusses the brotherhood’s racial policies.


[5] Lewis G. Hines, legislative representative of the AFL, testified on FEPC right after Mitchell. Hines, 5/19/49, Hearings 300–309.

Leslie Perry provided some insight on the motivation for unions to eliminate the segregation requirement from their constitutions while continuing the practice. In election cases, the NLRB, he explained, was required to determine the limits of collective bargaining units, and it had held that the appropriate bargaining unit must consist of all employees. To get around this ruling, some unions had eliminated the race requirement in their constitutions and instead had resorted to creating auxiliary unions for African American workers. Report of the Washington Bureau, 8/28/43, NAACP II: A-653, DLC.