KINLOCH, Mo., December 26, 1974.

Subject. Case No. P-551 and grievance No. 147652-Rudolph Coleman No. 04293.

Mr. GENE MATTIX,

UAW Regional Office,

180 South Bemiston,

St. Louis, Mo.

DEAR SIR: I protest unjust indefinite suspension which was later converted to a discharge for alleged actions involving Leon Mitchell on November 6, 1974. I'm requesting that I be brought back to work with all seniority reinstated and paid all monies and benefits lost.

The facts of this grievance are as follows. On November 5, 1974. While Leon Mitchell was reading the newspaper it became necessary for him to work into my area to catch a car that had gone pass him. The job is a three man operation. As I continued to do my job which is the basic part of the operation Mitchell work on, he said to me, "Get back, don't stand around me when I'm working". I tried to over look Mitchell's attitude so I continued to do my operation, which is done from the outside of the car while Mitchell worked from the inside. My working outside and Mitchell working inside didn't seem to matter. Mitchell continued to say "Coleman don't stand around me when I'm working, I done told you, now get back." I continued to work, when Mitchell finished his job and was getting out of the car he elbowed me in the side. At that point, I said to Mitchell "Don't do that don't do that." Mitchell stepped back and said to me, are you ready? Jim Wolffe, Utility Foreman in Training, was standing in our present when Mitchell made this assault about 2:00 p.m. It was obvious to me at this time, that Mitchell was trying to lure me into fighting. Since I was responsible to Jim Wolffe at the present time and he was standing in my presence, I immediately ask him to get my foreman Butch Vollmer because I could no longer work under these conditions. Jim Wolffe said "Rudy can you wait until in the morning because it will soon be time to go home?" My reply was yes.

On previous occasions I had told Vollmer of Mitchell's attitude, his reply to me was he could not deal with personalities.

On 11-6-74 I ask Jim Wolffe if he had told Vollmer that I wanted to see him. His reply was, Foreman Vollmer had to be in another area downstairs the first thing in the morning and that he would be up later. About 7:00 a.m. Foreman Vollmer came up. I stopped him and said to him, I'd like to have a talk with you? His reply was yes, I know I'll get back with you later Rudy.

It was time for my break about 7:05 a.m. when I saw my General Foreman, Bob Brockhouser. At this time, Mr. Brockhouser was talking to Milton Pertil, an inspector. I waited until they were through talking and then I ask General Foreman Brockhouser if I could talk to him? I told General Foreman Brockhouser all about the problems I was having with Leon Mitchell and about his attitude of wanting to start a fight with me. I made it very clear to General Foreman Brockhouser that I could not risk the chance of loosing my job by fighting with Mitchell. At that point I ask General Foreman Brockhouser to move Mitchell or me from the operation. I also stated that it did not make me any difference which one of us was moved. Mr. Brockhouser's reply to me was, you three guys have to work together and if Mitchell isn't willing to cooperate, he, Brockhouser, would have to make other arrangements. Mr. Brockhouser assured me that he understood my viewpoint and promised me that there was not going to be any problem or trouble. He said that he would get back with my foreman Mr. Vollmer and get it all straightened out. He assured me that I had nothing to worry about.

On the same day about two hours later, 9:00 a.m. Leon Mitchell walked into my work area. I was holding my electric checker in my hand. He murmured something, as I leaned forward to hear what he was saying he surprised me with a damaging blow to my face and mouth with his inspection buy punch (buy punch is a tool Mitchell work with). The blow broke off my two lower front teeth, loosen my two front upper teeth. The dentist stated that the two upper teeth may have to be removed because of the damaged nerves adjoining them. The upper and lower lips were bursted and the left sinus area was cut.

Mitchell lost his Inspection Buy Punch when he hit me. Foreman Butch Vollmer came down to help Mitchell find his buy punch tool. Vollmer asked me if I saw Mitchell's punch, never noticing or commenting on the blood that was run

ning from my mouth and face. I said to Vollmer no, I don't know where Mitchell's punch is. This was the second time I saw Vollmer since I had requested from Jim Wolff that he get my Foreman for me. Vollmer still not having time to talk to me, upon his leaving, stated to me I'll get back with you later Rudy, I haven't forgot. I was wearing a long shop coat, Vollmer had gone, realizing that I might have to protect myself. I attempted to take off my shop coat. When Mitchell saw me doing this, he came out of his pocket with a yellow case knife and stated to me come on. I looked to the right of me and picked up a Scratch-All tool from the repairmans table in self-defense. When Mitchell saw me pick up the tool Mitchell ran to Foreman Vollmer. I followed him, he turned on me with the knife. I continued to follow him so he began to run forward again by this time he was at Foreman Vollmer telling him that I had a knife. Vollmer believing him, stated to me Rudy, put your knife away before you both get into trouble. At this time, I stated to Vollmer I don't have a knife, Mitchell has one. Vollmer stated to Mitchell go on back on your job Mitchell, I'll get with you later. He said to me, come on Rudy, I want to talk to you. Vollmer then walked me to the office and told me to wait there until he came back.

About fifteen minutes later, I walked out of the office to see what was taking Vollmer so long to get back. This is when I saw him frisking Mitchell. I then went back and sat down. Within a few minutes, Vollmer, the guards, General Foreman Brockhouser and G. Robinson, which I later learned was part of Plants Labor Relation came in. They all wanted to know what happened. I told them the story as to what had happened. The guard's reply was. "Well he had the right to defend himself." Mr. Robinson then asked where is the knife. I replied, I didn't have a knife. Mr. Robinson stated, "Your foreman said you did and the other man has a cut wound, so you might as well own up to it." Now where is the knife? Again I replied, I don't have a knife. In responding to what my foreman had said, I turned to my foreman and stated Butch, (Vollmer) you didn't see me with a knife, you heard Mitchell say, Rudy has a knife isn't that right? Vollmer replied yes. At this time Mr. Robinson asked me what did you have? I replied, I picked up a Scratch-All. One of them then asked, did you come in contact with Mitchell at any time? My reply was, not to my knowledge, because Mitchell outran me by ten or more feet. At this time it seemed that I had been set up. Management then left the office to hold a closed conference about this time, Committeeman Goodman and Committeeman Woodie Woodworth came into the office where I was sitting. Committeeman Woodworth called Committeeman Goodman out of the office and closed the door for a short conference. Goodman returned to the office and told me to say, I didn't see Mitchell with a knife. Say you thought he had a knife as to why you picked up the Scratch-All. To me this was self-incriminating and an effort to clear Mitchell. So I told Committeeman Goodman that I couldn't make that statement because it wasn't true. Plus, I had already signed the interview form taken by Mr. Robinson of what really happened.

However, I was given an indefinite suspension pending further investigation. Vollmer stated to me, that Mitchell and I had received the same suspension. The next week 11-14-74, Mitchell was put back to work, and Committeeman Woodie Woodworth who represented Mitchell called me at my home and told me that I was being discharged. He then asked me, "Rudy this question may sound a little personal but, I don't mean it that way, are you on some kind of medication for a nervous disorder or were you ever in some kind of a mental institution?" Could you get your doctor to write a statement to that effect, as to what may have prompted the incident. told Committeeman Woody that I was taking medicine for muscular spasm and that it had nothing to do with the incident between Leon Mitchell and me.

I received confidentially information of how my case has been presented to the second step and it is all together different from what really happened between Leon Mitchell and me. There seemed to be an all out effort to cover up for the assault and attack on me by Leon Mitchell. Also, a cover up for my supervisors Butch Vollmer and Robert Brockhouser for failing to take the necessary action so that this incident could have been avoided.

In view of the above facts, if shop rule No. 30 was broken, I'm holding management responsible and also asking that I be returned to work with full seniority and benefits and be paid all monies lost.

62-586-76

14

RUDOLPH COLEMAN.

SOLIDARITY HOUSE,

Mr. RUDOLPH COLEMAN,

Member, Local Union 25, UAW,

5747 Oakton Drive, St. Louis County, Mo.

Detroit, Mich., September 24, 1975.

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: This is to inform you that your appeal received July 18, 1975, appealing from the decision of the General Motors Department in withdrawing your Appeal Case P-551 from before the Umpire, has been submitted to an Appeals Committee of the International Executive Board for processing in accordance with Article 33, Section 7, of the International Constitution. [Article 33, sec. 7 is no guarantee that my case will have a hearing.]1

You will be advised in the near future of the date, time and place of any hearing, if one is required, that may be scheduled on your appeal by the Chairman of the Appeals Committee to which your appeal has been assigned, or the decision of the International Executive Board, if no hearing is necessary. Brother George Merrelli is chairman of the Appeals Committee.

Any communications you may have in connection with your appeal prior to receiving a decision by the International Executive Board should be forwarded to my office.

Fraternally yours,

LEONARD WOODCOCK, President.

RITA REYNOLDS, YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS, MO.

The Young Women's Christian Association of St. Louis, Missouri presents the following to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities Hearing.

The YWCA is greatly concerned over the problem of unemployment that exists in our country and our city. Our particular concern as a women's organization mandated by our purpose and our imperative is concern for all unemployed women with special concern for third world women, and teenage women.

In 1974 there were 404,300 women in the St. Louis SMSA labor force. Of these women: 340,100 are white, 62,800 are black, 3200 are Spanish American, 1,400 are of other minority groups.

Overall unemployment rates of women in the St. Louis SMSA total 6.5% of these racially: 5.5% represent white women, 12.2% comprise black women, 6.2% Spanish American, 7.2% other minorities.

Unemployment rates for women who reported incomes of below poverty level the year previous to their unemployment is 10.7% in St. Louis County and 15.7% in the city of St. Louis. Obviously employment opportunities for these women are greatly limited.

WHY WOMEN WORK

Contrary to the myth that most women have a male figure contributing to her support, statistics prove otherwise.

Of the 31 million women in the labor force in 1970, according to U.S. Department of Labor 55% were working because of pressing economic need. They were either single, widowed, divorced, or separated, or had husbands whose incomes were less than 7,000 a year. About 42% of all non white husband-wife couples would be living in poverty if they had to depend solely on the husband's income. Among working wives: 51% contributed 20% of family income, 42% contributed 30% of family income, 26% contributed 40% of family income.

Rising unemployment in St. Louis has had an especially disastrous effect on youth employment with Third World teenage women having the highest rate. Young women in our community are caught in a two-pronged crisis: The immediate emergency need for any kind of job in the face of the declining job market and high unemployment among older, experienced workers. The longer range need to help youth and women generally to secure the training, skills and information about work opportunities, and a chance to test their abilities in advancing toward meaningful life goals which for most women include working outside the home.

1 Interpolation by Rudolph Coleman.

These young women need better job counseling and vocational training opportunities in school. They should have training and opportunities in non-traditional jobs.

Employers in both the private and the public sector have a responsibility to provide equal employment opportunities including salaries, pensions, health benefits, adequate time off for pregnancies, family emergencies, and opportunities for advancement for their women employees.

The relation between education and income is shown by the following chart of median incomes in the St. Louis SMSA in 1969:

In 1969 the median income for all males over 14 years of age was $7,521 while the female median income was only $2,523, 66.8% of all female workers and 75.8% of all back female workers earned less than $5,000. (Source: U.S. Census of Population, Detailed Characteristics, Missouri, 1970, Table 197.)

Even among the highly trained, sex differences produced very significant differences in earnings.

The gross discrepancy in the earnings of males and females, white and blacks is apparent, particularly within the same educational categories. On the other hand, the economic value of education, and particularly of the college degree, is also clear from the data. Of the 569,000 jobs within the SMSA held by males, 121,957 paid the worker less than $5,000 per year and 132,952 paid more than $10,000 per year. Of the 342,399 jobs held by females, 228,885 paid less than $5,000 per year and only 11,392 paid more than $10,000. Put another way, only 21.4% of the jobs held by males paid less than $5,000 per year while 66.8% of the jobs held by females paid at that level. On the other hand, 23% of the jobs held by males paid more than $10,000 per year while 3.3% of the jobs occupied by females paid at that level.

WOMEN AND LABOR UNIONS

Although unions in the past have supported equal pay acts and more recently the ERA some union leaders persist in their belief that women "don't belong" in the skilled trades.

As a result of these beliefs, women remain an insignificant percentage of the skilled labor force.

St. Louis attitudes reflect national attitudes about women in the skilled trades. In 1971, Joseph Cousin, then executive secretary-treasurer of the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council said, in the Post-Dispatch, "There done never been any women in the building and construction trades. . . you (gals) ought to get yourself a good man, with a good job and have lots of kids and be happy . . . why would you want to be in the building trades?

The Carpenters District Council of AFL-CIO had a small percentage of women members-all of whom worked inside. Carl Reiter, Associate Executive Secretary

Treasurer (1971) said, "We have no women out on construction. Women work in shops. Inside work pays less than half the wages women belong in the kitchen. Even if she could do the work, she should be home with the kids!"

In 1971 there were no women members of the Bricklayers-stone and marble masons unions, Bridge-Structural-Ornamental Iron-Workers Union, Machinery Movers and Riggers Union, Painters Union and Plumbers Union in St. Louis. The Aircraft Mechanic Fraternal Association had only a few women members; they worked as interior cleaners and the pay was lower.

Labor unions and skilled trade educational facilities in St. Louis continue to discriminate against female participation. It has only been in the last six months that the educational institutions in St. Louis have allowed women to enroll in technical courses in the trade schools. These courses are prerequisite to acquiring a job in the skilled trades. This "open door" policy has come about Movers and Riggers Union, Painters Union and Plumbers Union in St. Louis.

women.

It is important to note that the difference between a Union and a non-union job has meant an average of $1500 annually. Women have been locked out of these fields for too long.

We feel that organized labor must act quickly to bring women into full participation as workers and as members of skilled trade unions. It is only when this is done will we be able to correct some of the damage done to women as people.

DOCUMENTING THE NEED FOR QUALITY CHILD CARE CENTERS AS A SUPPORT

SERVICE FOR WOMEN WHO NEED EMPLOYMENT

About 13.0 million women in the labor force in March 1973 had children under the age of 18 years; 4.8 million of these working mothers had children under the age of 6. The presence of young children in the family has a direct effect on the mother's labor force participation. Among married women living with their husbands only one-third of the mothers with children under 6 years but half of the mothers with school-age children only are workers. Among widows, divorcees, and women separated from their husbands, however, nearly half (47 percent) of those with preschool children are workers. If they have school-age children then 2 out of three of these women are in the labor force. Department of Labor manpower experts cite lack of child care as the most serious single barrier to job training or employment for low-income mothers. Our national goal and our local city and state goal as well should be:

1. A system of well-run child care centers available to all pre-school children. Although priority should be given to the needs of low-income working mothers, the facilities should be available to middle income mothers who wish to use them. There is an abysmal lack of child care facilities and women who are heads of household find that even if they make an average salary that child care costs can eat up the major part of their income leaving them without the funds for such necessities as preventative health care and any financial cushion against emergencies.

2. Afterschool activities for school-age children at all economic levels for those who require them. Juvenile mischief and juvenile crime frequently is committed by children who leave the school grounds for an empty house or apartment.

Many working women feel uneasy about the welfare of their children because of the lack of quality day care facilities available in our area. We also lack programs of supervision for school-age children before and after school and throughout the summer months. We support the concept of 7 day a week 24 hour child care facilities as there are little or no facilities available for women who work odd hours that include nights and week-ends.

CLOSING

The unemployment and underutilization of women heads of household, women ex-offenders and ADC mothers and young women 16-21 constitute a large problem for the community and for the women themselves. Minimal education and almost non-existent skills combined with the social stereotypes attributed to women workers compound the problems of a distressed economy and poor job market.