Mr. HAWKINS. Well, what will be the relationship of the union's representative to the charging party? What are you going to be doing with the charging party during that time other than merely factfinding? Mr. POLLARD. Nothing. We will not have any contact with the charging party other than to investigate and fashion a remedy. Mr. HAWKINS. How can you fashion a remedy if you are not discussing it with the charging party? Mr. POLLARD. We don't discuss it with the charging party now. The Commission discusses it with the charging party. We are not permitted to deal with the charging party. It has never been our practice to deal with the charging party once the charging party filed the allegation. Mr. HAWKINS. Well, I just don't understand; it is not clear to me what you are going to resolve if you cannot do it with the charging party. That is one of the points, it seems to me, that was raised in opposition to the agreement. I am simply trying to clarify what has been before the committee. The other point contained on page 7 of the same agreement of July 25, memorandum of understanding, paragraphs 14 and 15, read: The respondent agrees not to discriminate or retaliate against the charging party. Now, many individuals have indicated that they opposed such a procedure have indicated that it may result in diminution. Let us say there is some validity to that. How would these paragraphs, paragraphs 14 and 16 Mr. POLLARD. On page what? Mr. HAWKINS. On page 7. The question is: How would paragraphs 14 and 15, which tend to protect the charging party against them from any intimidation or what you call retaliation-how would those paragraphs be enforced? Who would enforce them under the formal agreement? Mr. POLLARD. Unfortunately the copy I have does not correspond with yours if you read paragraphs 14 and 15. Mr. HAWKINS. It reads: The respondent agrees not to discriminate or retaliate against the charging party because the charging party has opposed any practice which the charging party believes to be unlawful under the act or because the charging party made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the act. I think that might be reduced to a hypothetical case in which there is a respondent of both the company and the union, that that might be a seniority provision, and that there is some retaliation or intimidation or threats that the charging party will be discharged or not be promoted because of the fact the charging party has brought this charge against that relationship or that setup. Now presuming that does happen, would the international union or the AFL-CIO itself or your department, or whatever: Who would enforce that action or some action against that happening? Mr. POLLARD. First of all, that is a reiteration of the law as it is now; and this document, by the way, was not drafted by the AFL-CIO. We had input in it and it was drafted primarily as a result of discussions between the staff of the AFL-CIO civil rights department, the Commission's staff, and the general counsel of EEOC. On the question of retaliation, this legislation, title VII, was the only section that did not become operative on July 2, 1964. It became active 1 year later. There has never been a reported instance. There has never been a reported instance of retaliation or intimidation by a union of a charging party since this title has been in operation. There has never been a report to us that any union or any officer of a union has intimidated a charging party. However, if such should occur, provisions are made in the law itself for charges to be filed against that union or any respondent that would engage in that kind of practice. Besides, when they send out a charge-the Commission-it attaches to the charge a statement that is available to the respondents, underscoring that very thing-they had better not engage in that kind of activity. Mr. BELL. Mr. Hawkins, if I might say something. Mr. HAWKINS. Let me respond to what he said. The answer, then: The enforcement would go back to the parent law, title VII, and under that law that any intimidation or retaliation is provided for and it is not necessary through the machinery that it is provided. It is not necessary to provide machinery in this memorandum. Mr. POLLARD. It is merely cosmetic in this memorandum. Mr. BELL. My question, Mr. Pollard, is: Do you know how these things are done as a practical matter? A statement that it never has been done Mr. POLLARD. It never has been reported, Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. It has never been reported that does not mean a great deal. You know how those things work out. The fact it has not been reported does not mean it has not happened. Mr. POLLARD. Right. On the back of every charge when the notice is sent to the respondent, a copy of this notice of section 704 (a) is attached to the charge when it is received by the respondent, indicating the notice of nonretaliation requirement under the law. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much. This concludes the hearing. I would like to thank the witnesses, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Brody, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Pohlhaus, for their excellent presentations and also at this time to personally express thanks for the support which they have given to the Chair in the field of EEO legislation over the years. Without the assistance of the AFL-CIO we would not have a law on the statute books. I am pleased officially to recognize that today. May I add that what I have said applies equally to the leadership conference. I was almost using them interchangeably. Mr. BRODY. I would only add this: Without the commitment and support and leadership of members of your committee, the 1964 and 1974 Civil Rights Acts would not be law. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. Mr. POLLARD. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman: In spite of the problems at EEOC which, as a young agency, it is encountering, we stand behind the principle of equal employment opportunity 100 percent. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Pollard. With that, the hearings is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 92d Congress 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1972 Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Showing Changes Made by Public Law 92-261 Approved March 24, 1972 SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE UNITED STATES SENATE MARCH 1972 Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1972 |