« PreviousContinue »
things as much as possible before going E to court.
Mr. LINDSAY. The gentleman from Michigan is entirely correct in that statement and I think it has to be restated: I The two-commissioner provision which the gentleman from Florida apparently : complains about only provides that conrciliation procedures can go forward if
two Commissioners find that reasonable 1 cause exists for crediting a charge. The gentleman is correct when he states that later on, when and if you get down to the business of formal procedures, it takes a majority of the Commission and that majority can come to a different conclusion. It may or may not elect to proceed in the courts if it determines there is reasonable cause to believe the respondent has engaged in practices proscribed.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. I understand what the gentleman is saying. I think conciliation is a proper approach. But the prob
pp. 2715, 2716
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
EDITORS' NOTE: An amendment clarifying the standard for initiating conciliation and mediation procedures was introduced by Congressman Cramer (R., Fla.). It substituted the words "reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true" for "reasonable cause exists for crediting the charge." The amendment was agreed to by voice vote, and language appeared in the bill as finally adopted.
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER: On page 74, line 23, strike out "reasonable cause exists for crediting the charge" and insert "there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true".
lem I have is with reference to the twoman minority members of a commission who may initially make a finding that discrimination has, in effect, taken place and may make some effort to try to stop it. Now the three-man Commission at a later time can find-oh, no, those two were wrong and we as a majority find there is no discrimination that justifies court action. That just does not make much sense.
Mr. CRAMER. The reason why I offer this amendment is, in the first place, because of the concern which I previously expressed about the procedure set up under this section 707 for the prevention of these discriminatory practices. I know of no instance where the words "crediting a charge" have been used in the law
Mr. LINDSAY. The same rule applies as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. PEPPER pointed out where the Supreme Court can grant certiorari on the basis of four members concurring and then the full Court at a later date may come to a different conclusion when the matter is tested on the merits.
I would point out the two-member provision, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN] aptly pointed out, sets in motion only a conciliation procedure and you could have one member and you would not be prejudicing anybody.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York Mr. CELLER). The amendment was agreed to.
today. To me, I am afraid, it means a mere scintilla of evidence; that is, a small amount of evidence, is adequate to give credence to the charge and, therefore, credit to the charge and, therefore, even though there is only a scintilla or a minute amount of evidence that discrimination actually exists, that then the persuasion-and it is pretty substantial-of the Commission can be brought into play.
I am concerned about the phrase "reasonable cause for crediting the charge." The phrase that I propose, “reasonable cause to believe the charge is true" has meaning. It is a word of art and everybody understands what it means, but nobody knows what "crediting" means.
I would like to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL), if he will accept this amendment.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think the amendment clarifies exactly what we intended. I think it is a good amendment. It does tighten it up, and I would hope that this can be accepted. There is certainly no objection on the merits of the amendment as described by the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Does not the gentleman agree further that if this is not adopted, then a mere scintilla of evidence can be used. Anybody can complain and without there having to be proof to constitute adequate reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true. The test would be different. If the answer is no this test is not different, then why was the word "crediting" rather than "reasonable cause to believe the charge is true" used? I ask that because it is not a word of art.
art and it would be difficult for any court or the Commission itself to determine what it means?
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CELLER. I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, but, of course, I do not concede the conclusions that the gentleman made. I think the words "there is reasonable cause to believe the charge is true" is a better selection of words without question.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Enforcement and Administration:
EDITORS' NOTE: An amendment making all employees of the EEOC, including members of the Commission, subject to the Hatch Act was introduced by Senator Miller (R., Iowa). At the suggestion of Senator Humphrey (D., Minn.), Senator Miller agreed to strike the words "including members of the Commission." and the amendment as modified was adopted by a voice vote.
Enforcement and Administration: EEOC-Jurisdiction
EDITORS' NOTE: Senator Tower (R., Tex.) introduced an amendment making Title VII the exclusive means whereby the federal government could grant or seek relief from an unlawful employment practice. The amendment was defeated by a roll-call vote, 29 to 59.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 962 and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Texas will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 68, between lines 19 and 20, it is proposed to insert the following new section:
SEC. 717. Beginning on the effective date of sections 703, 704, 706, and 707 of this title, as provided in section 716, the provisions of this title shall constitute the exclusive means whereby any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch of the Government, or any independent agency of the United States, may grant or seek relief from, or pursue any remedy with respect to, any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee covered by this title, if such employment practice may be the subject of a charge or complaint filed under this title.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment is designed to give added stature to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established under title VII by insuring that all cases of employment opportunity are decided primarily under its auspices and that its
effectiveness is not diluted by operations of other agencies and commissions within the executive branch.
The amendment is drawn because of the expressed desire of Senators not to unduly harass the employers and unions covered by title VII. In past experience with State FEPC laws and concurrent Federal jurisdictions, firms and unions have been subjected to unnecessary harassment and expense.
My understanding is that the compromised bill deals with this question as between the Federal and State employment commissions by allowing the States exclusive jurisdiction for stated periods. I am glad that revision was placed in the bill; I support it; and my amendment would in no wise change that.
However, there remains untouched by the compromised bill the question of overlapping investigations by Federal agencies or commissions. My amendment would eliminate that overlap in complete accord with the State versus Federal provisions already placed in the bill by the leadership.
My amendment would assure employers that they would not have to respond simultaneously to investigations and directions from the title VII, EEOC, and also from the various departments charged with enforcing the provisions of the President's Equal Employment Commission's rules for Federal contractors.
Graphic evidence of earlier harassment of business by the Air Force as an arm of the President's Commission is shown in the oft-lamented Motorola