ST. LOUIS, Mo., October 9, 1975. President LEONARD WOODCOCK, DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: In response to the letter I received from you dated 9-24-75, it was stated in that letter that my case #P551 has been submitted to the appeal committee for processing in accordance with article 33, section 7. It also stated that if I had any communication in connection with my appeal to forward it to you. My communication is in the form of a petition signed by my Fellow Union Brothers. Please find attached the petition of eight pages signed by more than 377 brothers opposed to the action taken against me by GMAD and the way my grievance was handled. Sincerely, RUDOLPH COLEMAN. JULY 22, 1975. Re Rudolph Coleman, U.A.W. Case No. P-551, E.E.O.C. Charge No. TSL5-0896; DEAR SIR: It is regrettable that I have a need to write this letter, but due to the circumstances thereof, my life, health, and the welfare of my family is affected by an unlawful act of racial discrimination by my employer, GMAD, St. Louis, Mo. My name is Rudolph Coleman, Social Security No. 491-34-4256, phone 521-3218. I formerly worked for GMAD, Chevrolet Division, St. Louis plant, 3809 Union Blvd., my badge number was 04293. I worked for Chevrolet, GMAD for over twelve years. I am 42 years old and a winner of approximately 27 awards from the company. My overall work history is good in spite of the pressures I had to deal with the last three or four years at GM. In January, 1973, I tried to seek help from the EEOC concerning the continuous efforts of GMAD practicing discrimination against me. I was told that I need not be afraid to file alleged racial discrimination if I felt I was being discriminated against and that my employer could not take action against me for that reason-if they did there would be a retaliation charge against the company. I was told, by EEOC, in 1973 that it would probably be about six months before my case could be looked into because of a heavy back-log. Since then, the company speaking in regards to people working for the company has tried many tactics to get rid of me in a manner that would not look like racial discrimination. November 6, 1974, I was wrongfully discharged and it seems like, from all indications that I was "set-up" and the union representative was partially involved in working against me. I do have some proof of this. EEOC has had my charges for two and one-half years but have not made any contact with me. I went back to their office several times concerning my charge but with no results. I still have not been interviewed by an investigator. My EEOC charge numbers are: TSL5-0896, December, 1974; TSL3-0937, January, 1973; and TSL5-1768, May, 1975. It seems to me that General Motors, St. Louis plant, has taken an attitude that. in spite of the law, if given enough time, they can do anything they want to and get away with it. Could this be because some of our local union representatives and some governmental funded resources find it all too easy and maybe a lot more feasible to work in favor of big industries instead of getting involved and making a thorough investigation of the single individual case and see that Justice takes it's rightful position. Attached, please find a copy of the true case in reference to P-551 in which the union tried to destroy. It was withdrawn on the thirteenth of June without my knowledge, a fact I found out about on July fifteenth, too late for an appeal to an umpire hearing. Although I was too late in finding out, I have still made an effort to appeal my case to Leonard Woodcox. I am prepared to appear before any court of law for cross examining. I believe I can successfully challenge any allegations alleged against me in the presence of a non-bias jury. I still believe that somewhere in our society there still remains a little bit of justice. I am in drastic need of your support and your help. go nor you, at least when it takes 20 to 30 years to get there—you would be dead before you arrived. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we believe that there should be a well-laid-out plan such as outlined by the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act to make possible the right for useful and meaningful employment to every adult American who is able and willing to work. I have more, but I am going to comply with your wishes, and I want to thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. Let me thank you for your testimony, Mr. Williams, You have been very cooperative, and we certainly appreciate it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. May I announce at this time that five persons who were supposed to have testified have indicated that they will not testify but will submit statements for the record. I just want them to know that their statements will be put into the record at this point. Those that have so requested are Mr. Rudolph Coleman who has a letter addressed to UAW; Mr. Gordon Henderson, Human Development Corp. of St. Louis; the YWCA, Miss Rita Reynolds, Metropolitan St. Louis; Ms. Lyvonne Moore of St. Louis regarding the Postal Service; and Mrs. Sylvia Miller representing the National Welfare Rights Organization. We certainly appreciate the cooperation of these individuals, and their statements will be entered into the record at this point. [The statements follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. SYLVIA MILLER, NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION The League for Adequate Welfare (L.A. W.) and Southside Welfare Rights support H.R. 50. The economic condition of America demands that we support this bill. We need jobs for our teenagers because without current and future employment, their education will prove futile. According to Missouri State Welfare laws when a teenager reaches 18 years of age and still in school he is automatically removed from his parent's A.D.C. grant and placed on General Relief which is a state program. If this young person is about to complete high school he is sent a letter from the Division of Family services that his General Relief will be terminated because he will be out of school and therefore is employable. No consideration is given to the fact that his chances of becoming employed is next to nil. A month or two before graduation the $70 a month G.R. check is terminated. This condition is often a deterrent as to whether or not a young person is able to continue his education, and a $70 a month deduction from income in a household can mean the difference between existence and non-existence; it effects the complete household financial structure: rent, food, stamps, payment of utilities, et cetera. At the present time a former G.R. recipient can apply for training through the W.I.N. program, however, if they are placed they are terminated within two weeks. We want the teenagers who are employed to be covered by the minimum wage law. Unemployment has become so severe in this country until people who were gainfully employed are finding themselves laid off permanently with nothing to look forward to by means of employment and are fast becoming welfare recipients themselves. They are finding themselves on A.D.C.-General Relief and in the food stamp line. According to an article in yesterday's Globe (bill proposed by Senator Buckley) if a person is out of work he will have to work 80 hours per month-public service in order to qualify for food stamps-article stated no work, no stamps. They must have proof that they have constantly been seeking jobs. If there is a full employment bill people will not have to have food stamps; they can be self sustaining through emplovment. We do fully support the H.R. 50, with one slight reservation, is it necessary to wait 36 months before enactment? ST. LOUIS, Mo., October 9, 1975. President LEONARD WOODCOCK, DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: In response to the letter I received from you dated 9-24-75, it was stated in that letter that my case #P551 has been submitted to the appeal committee for processing in accordance with article 33, section 7. It also stated that if I had any communication in connection with my appeal to forward it to you. My communication is in the form of a petition signed by my Fellow Union Brothers. Please find attached the petition of eight pages signed by more than 377 brothers opposed to the action taken against me by GMAD and the way my grievance was handled. Sincerely, RUDOLPH COLEMAN. JULY 22, 1975. Re Rudolph Coleman, U.A.W. Case No. P-551, E.E.O.C. Charge No. TSL5-0896; No. TSL3-0937; No. TSL5-1768. Congressman JAMES SYMINGTON, DEAR SIR: It is regrettable that I have a need to write this letter, but due to the circumstances thereof, my life, health, and the welfare of my family is affected by an unlawful act of racial discrimination by my employer, GMAD, St. Louis, Mo. My name is Rudolph Coleman, Social Security No. 491-34-4256, phone 521-3218. I formerly worked for GMAD, Chevrolet Division, St. Louis plant, 3809 Union Blvd., my badge number was 04293. I worked for Chevrolet, GMAD for over twelve years. I am 42 years old and a winner of approximately 27 awards from the company. My overall work history is good in spite of the pressures I had to deal with the last three or four years at GM. In January, 1973, I tried to seek help from the EEOC concerning the continuous efforts of GMAD practicing discrimination against me. I was told that I need not be afraid to file alleged racial discrimination if I felt I was being discriminated against and that my employer could not take action against me for that reason-if they did there would be a retaliation charge against the company. I was told, by EEOC, in 1973 that it would probably be about six months before my case could be looked into because of a heavy back-log. Since then, the company speaking in regards to people working for the company has tried many tactics to get rid of me in a manner that would not look like racial discrimination. November 6, 1974, I was wrongfully discharged and it seems like, from all indications that I was "set-up" and the union representative was partially involved in working against me. I do have some proof of this. EEOC has had my charges for two and one-half years but have not made any contact with me. I went back to their office several times concerning my charge but with no results. I still have not been interviewed by an investigator. My EEOC charge numbers are: TSL5-0896, December, 1974; TSL3-0937, January, 1973; and TSL5-1768, May, 1975. It seems to me that General Motors, St. Louis plant, has taken an attitude that. in spite of the law, if given enough time, they can do anything they want to and get away with it. Could this be because some of our local union representatives and some governmental funded resources find it all too easy and maybe a lot more feasible to work in favor of big industries instead of getting involved and making a thorough investigation of the single individual case and see that Justice takes it's rightful position. Attached, please find a copy of the true case in reference to P-551 in which the union tried to destroy. It was withdrawn on the thirteenth of June without my knowledge, a fact I found out about on July fifteenth, too late for an appeal to an umpire hearing. Although I was too late in finding out, I have still made an effort to appeal my case to Leonard Woodcox. I am prepared to appear before any court of law for cross examining. I believe I can successfully challenge any allegations alleged against me in the presence of a non-bias jury. I still believe that somewhere in our society there still remains a little bit of justice. I am in drastic need of your support and your help. If you wish, you can contact me at 5747 Oakton, St. Louis, Mo. 63140. Phone: 521-3218. Thank you very kindly for your consideration and help. RUDOLPH COLEMAN. FEBRUARY 17, 1975. Mr. JAMES BLANCETT, Acting Chairman of Local No. 25 U.A. W., 3809 Union Boulevard, St. Louis, Mo. DEAR SIR: I wish to advise and do contest the following: It is to my understanding that four or five union members or brothers have allowed themselves to become inductive to an assumption which resulted in my discharge on the date November 6, 1974. These union brothers or members have allowed themselves to become part of a conspiracy in which management has been plotting for the last two or more years against me. I would like to point out that these are union members working against another union member in behalf of the company or management. The facts are as follows: 1. These union members were not involved in the incident that took place on November 6, 1974, in any way. 2. They did not see all or anything that happened based on the statement they made. 3. They furnished management with basically untrue statements which they signed concerning the incident. 4. They showed no respect for their brother or what the union stands for. 5. They have interferred with a union grievance which the committeeman wrote in behalf of me. 6. They have helped GMAD build a case against another union brother, Rudolph Coleman, which is damaging and conflicting to (my) his grievance. I would like to say that when one union member's rights have been violated, ALL members rights have, therefore, it is un-union for any union member to furnish the company-management with information aimed against another union member unless he or she is involved. Therefore, I am charging these members with misconduct and interfering with a union grievance, also, partially responsible for my discharge and threatening my chances for re-instatement with full seniority and all benefits paid. It is my grievance and it is at the empire steps. As you know, I am trying to have my seniority re-instated through the grievance procedure established in the collective bargaining agreement. These signed statements have damaged my grievance and case and also dominate my chance of winning and regaining my rights and job at the empire hearing. Therefore, I am asking that these UAW members or brothers or any other UAW etc., be given the same option and advice that was given to me, that is to withdraw those statements and if they do not, I ask that they be discharged from the union by the union as I was by the company to the extent of my discharge. Their names are as follows: 1. Jerry Frye 2. Ray Baker 3. Jim Wolfe and any other union members. Also, I do contest the fact that Case #P551 does not support the facts that were submitted to committeeman C. Goodman by me, Rudolph Coleman, on November 6, 1974, pertaining to grievance #147652. Your response to this letter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, RUDOLPH V. COLEMAN. CLAYTON, Mo., February 14, 1975. RUDOLPH COLEMAN, 5747 Oakton, St. Louis, Mo. DEAR MR. COLEMAN: Enclosed herewith is the material you recently left with us concerning the matter of your discharge. After our review of this matter we have concluded that we will be unable to be of service to you with respect thereto. This action is necessary because of our trial commitments this Spring and does not mean that you do not have a meritorious cause of action. We urge you to contact another attorney at your first opportunity and advise him of the matters you told us about. We are sorry to have to take this action but have no alternative in the matter. Very truly yours, Enclosures. JOSEPH HOWLETT. SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE BY RUDOLPH COLEMAN, 5747 OAKTON, |