# Appendix — Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0859%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 440 U.S. 301 ## Text iat JUN 10 197¢ MICHARL ROBAK, JR CLERK APPENDIX IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Octoser Term, 1977 No. 77-968 Derrort Epison Company, Petitioner, v. NationaL Lasor Revations Boarp, Respondent. ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 4, 1978 CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 27, 1978 INDEX Page SE SEE Soc p ec cab ic ccctesenncecsvedeseasads 1 Transcript of Proceedings before the NLRB, Seventh EE, dau cCeWsawhescen asst dieeurcesscacwes 3 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 1(a)—Charge against employer before the NLRB ................... 104 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 1(¢c)—Complaint and I ov ots beS ccdvcce se coateteens 107 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 1(e)—Answer to GS C4 Hic e late Ke ches dscddssetecccwouees 113 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 2—Agreement between Detroit Edison and Utility Workers Union before SP ED Soin d 6-00 64-544 044005 4b 06056404 ce eese 115 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 3—Grievance ........ 120 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 4—Letter of Clem Lewis to Mr. E. Ruch, Detroit Edison, dated ee hs cee cede hl eiés anea bee 4 121 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 5—Letter of Ralph H. Houghton, Jr. to Clem Lewis, Utility Workers Union, dated March 15, 1973 .................. 122 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 6—Letter of C. J. — to Dallas Jones, Arbitrator, dated May 23, “a BT Middn Leeks casei bab ccbu be teteed basccbers General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 7—Letter of Clem Lewis to Ralph Houghton, dated June 2, 1973... 125 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8—Letter of Ralph Houghton to Clem Lewis re: Detroit Edison La- bor Arbitration, dated July 10, 1973 ............ 127 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9—Letter of Mr. Houghton to Mr. Lewis, dated July 18, 1973 .... 132 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10—Letter of Mr. Houghton to Mr. Lewis, dated August 6, 1973 ... 134 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 11—Letter of Clem Lewis to Dallas Jones, dated August 9, 1973 .... 136 ii Index Continued Page General Counsel‘s Exhibit No. 12—Letter of Clem Lewis and Ralph Houghton to Dallas Jones, PO RR eer rr ee 138 General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 14—Submission Ques- tion for resumption of Hearing in Re: Detroit Edison Arbitration Grievance ................. 140 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 1—First step meeting. .... 141 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 2—Memorandum of Paul Murphy, Jr. to R. Sprayberry re: First step EEE, -chbbs bbe 4 vse bbkused ved ceeded 144 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 3—Minutes of grievance— ETE 664 Kl dnbanhasidnuksacdueaassakeach annie 145 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 4—Letter of W. K. Pence to Peter P. Johnson re: Step 2 of grievance..... 149 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 5—Letter of R. W. Schleicher to Peter P. Johnson re: grievance.... 151 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 6—Letter of Peter Johnson to W. G. Meese, Pres. Detroit Edison re: EE, sn 6. twee ecdddensubaded agers cecnas 154 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 7—Proceedings and testi- mony taken before a board of arbitration between Detroit Edison and Utility Workers Union ..... 155 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 8—Proceedings and tran- script taken before a board of arbitration con- WE. Gun dn Kan canienaccucnuecarecs dices deck a 219 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 9—Proceedings and tran- script continued, discussion off the record ...... 268 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 10—Direct examination of NT MIE WiiGi obs cah ia huge gt ecg dae 302 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 11—Proceedings and tran- re MN 6 ds 5.040Neth back cane ebeuecdlo: 331 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 13—Study of Selection Tests for instrumentmen in the power plants ... 343 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 14—Supplement to revali- dation research on employment selection tests .. 354 ee OF Index Continued iii Page Respondent’s Exhibit No. 15—The multi-aptitude “s DD ccocscdpedadeceadeetpsnewadnnseseesesse? Respondent’s Exhibit No. 16—Aptitude test continued “ —Formulation ......---eeeeeeeeeeeerete® or Respondent’s Exhibit No. 17—Aptitude test continued on Arithmetic reasoning ......---++++s++*" ah : ’s Exhibit No. 18—Aptitude test continue —. Three: Mathematical reasoning ...------ 416 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 19--Test items ........--- 424 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 20—Ethical Standards of a Psychologists .....---+eseeeeererreseseeets ans Respondent’s Exhibit No. 21—Introduction to testing 449 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 22—-Answer sheet for apti- tude test ......-ccceeeceeececeeeeeseees pan Respondent’s Exhibit No. 23—Revised Minnesota om Paper Form board test .....-.++++++s+eeerrree Respondent’s Exhibit No. 24—Aptitude test ... a 449 Order of the Supreme Court granting the Petition a Bae WE occ cccccsccccosccceescccscsouccssecs Docket Entries UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES WASHINGTON, D.C. Case No. 7-CA-10276(2) Tue Derrorr Epison Company, Respondent and Locat 223, Urmiry Workers Union or Amenica, AFL-CIO, Charging Party 4.4.74 Charge filed 8.8.74 Complaint and Notice of Hearing, dated 8.16.74 9.17.74 9.23.74 9.23.74 1.29.75 2.21.75 6.30.75 7.18.75 7.24.75 8.10.77 10.27.77 11.22.77 Answer of Respondent the Detroit Edison Com- pany, dated Order Denying Request for Postponement, dated Hearing opened Hearing closed Administrative Law Judge’s Decision, dated Respondent’s Exceptions To Administrative Law Judge’s Decision, dated Board’s Decision and Order, dated Respondent’s Request For Reconsideration, dated Order Denying Motion, dated Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated Petition for Rehearing, filed Denial of Petition for Rehearing, dated 2 The following judgments and opinions are located at the following places in the Appendix to the petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari: a. Decision dated August 10, 1977, by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, App., p. la-12a. b. Denial of petition for rehearing by Sixth Circuit dated November 22, 1977. App., p. 13a. c. Decision of NLRB dated June 30, 1975. App., p. 14a- 17a. d. Decision of Administrative Law Judge dated January 29, 1975. App., p. 18a-59a. e. Arbitration opinion and award dated December 3, 1973. App., p. 60a-76a. f. Arbitration opinion and award dated October 23, 1974. App., p. 77a-87a. 3 [1] BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SEVENTH REGION Case No. 7-CA-10276(2) In the Matter of: Tue Derroir Epison Company, Respondent and Locan 223, Urmiry Workers Union or America, AFL-CIO, Charging Party 418 Book Building Detroit, Michigan Monday, September 23, 1974 Pursuant to notice, the above-entitled matter came on for hearing at 10:30 o’clock a.m. BeEForeE: Honorable Smwwney J. Barsan, Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES: Mr. Joun A. Craramiraro, National Labor Relations Board, Seventh Region, 500 Book Building, Detroit, Michi- gan 48226; appearing as Counsel for the General Counsel. Mr. Ratpa H. Hoveurton, Jr., Fischer, Franklin and Ford, 1700 Guardian Building, Detroit, oe 48226; appearing on behalf of the Respondent. [2] Apprarances (Continued) : Mr. Ciement J. Lewis, Utility Workers Union of Ameri- ca, AFL-CIO, Suite 605, 815 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006; appearing on behalf of the Charging Party. [3] ConTENTSs WIrTNEss Drrect Cross Reprect ReEcross Clem Lewis 12 35 71 + aes =~ Pa Dr. Marvin Dunnette 88 100 106 113 119 123 — Dr. William Roskind 123 146 155 164 169 Exnairsits F iii oR IpentTiFIcaTIon Iw Evipence 1(a) through 1(h) 5 5 : 13 13 : 14 16 : 17 18 z 18 19 : 24 24 ; 26 26 : 27 27 27 28 10 28 11 and 12 29 > See Page 28 31 31 Respondent’s 1 45 46 4 [3-A] Exuusrts (Continued) For Ipentirication In Evipence Respondent’s 2 46 47 3 47 47 4 47 48 5 48 49 6 49 49 7 through 11 50 52 12 53 54 13 58 59 14 59 60 15 61 63 16 65 66 17 66 66 18 66 67 19 67 137 20 136 136 21 140 141 22 143 143 23 144 144 24 144 145 25 176 176 [6] Mz. Hoventon: Your honor, as you have probably noted in a brief perusal of the formal documents, the case involves an issue as to whether or not the Edison Company has violated the Act by refusing to disclose certain infor- mation to the union, regarding psychological aptitude testing. I think most of thé facts in this case will be agreed to and I don’t see any dispute in that area. We’ll be looking primarily at the issue and whether or not the union in this particular has a justification for receiving this information. 6 Without detailing all of the facts, I would like to just review the three points or pieces of information I think the union desires to obtain, and advise you as to the company’s position. The job that we’re talking about here is an instrument man job in the powerplant. A psychological aptitude test battery, consisting of two tests, was used in conjunction with selecting applicants to fill vacancies in the instrument man job. In order to be considered and fill that job, you must have received an acceptable score on the psychological aptitude test battery. The test itself consists of two tests— that is the battery consists of two tests—the EPSAT and the Minnesota [7] Form Board test, two psychological ap- titude tests that were given to all the applicants. The union has requested basically two pieces of informa- tion. They have asked that the company turn over the tests themselves, the actual tests that are used. The company has declined to do that. The company has provided the union with various sample types of questions that are found on these tests, but has taken the position that the tests themselves are confidential. And secondly, to disclose them to the public, would infringe upon the future validity of the tests as they are used in future testing programs. The company has offered to do two things to appease the union in this case. One, our position is we would be willing to disclose these tests to a qualified industrial psychologist for his perusal, for a determination on behalf of the union. We have also indicated to Mr. Lewis, the spokesman for the union, that we would permit him to take the test himself. But we feel we cannot, in fairness to the validity of the tests and our position, disclose the actual test itself. Two other pieces of information the union desires are the answers, that is what we would think of as the answer ll i wwe 7 sheets for individuals that have taken the test, and also the actual scores obtained by individual employees. We have declined to disclose those pieces of we [8] unless we have the employee’s consent. We roth to furnish all that information to the union wi te A on ployee’s consent. Our position, again, has ive ayn the employees took the test they were eon abe results of their scores would be kept oo unle tem employee agreed to have them released. If t e m . agrees to have them released, we have no objection nishing that information to the union. Now, it’s within this framework that we confine —- here today, before you, on the central issue, ry : “ whether or not the company should be required to disclos the actual tests themselves to the union. Thank you. a witness called by and on behalf of the General Counsel, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Drrect ExaMINaTION Jupcz Barsan : Be seated, please. i i i d you state _ (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Mr. Lewis, woul an Hs Road and address for the record? A. My — ? Clem Lewis, my address is 815 16th Street, N.W., Room 605, hington, D.C. 20006. "e “~ Lewis, by whom are you presently employed? - I work for the Utility Workers Union of America, AF "- And how long have you been employed by Utility rkers? A. More than twenty-five years. _ What is your current position with the Utility Work- ers Union? A. My title is Director of Services for the National Union. 8 Q. And how long have you had that position? A. Since 1970. Q. And could you very briefly describe what your duties are as director of services? A. Yes, I’m in charge of re- search, education, arbitration [13] services, aids to nego- tiations to our various unions throughout the country, and matters of that kind. Q. Now I direct your attention to January of 1972. Did your union have a then current collective bargaining agree- ment with Detroit Edison Company, covering its Monroe Powerplant? A. We did. Q. I show you what has been marked for identification as General Counsel’s Exhibit 2 and ask you whether or not that’s the agreement to which you have referred? (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 2 for identification.) A. This is the agreement. Mr. CraraMiTaRO: I now move its introduction into evi- dence. Mr. Hoventon: No objection. Jupce Barsan: Hearing no objections, General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 2 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 2 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Now, Mr. Lewis, does that con- tract contain what can be referred to as a criteria for pro- motion clause? A. It does. Q. Is that clause Article Eight, Section thirty-eight? A. Yes. There are two clauses on promotions, but the one [14] you refer to is correct. A-thirty eight, and there is another one called Seven Article VII, 13, on page thirty. —— 9 Q. Okay, thank you, Mr. Lewis. Now directing your at- tention to January 13, 1972, a grievance referred to as PMO 123, did it arise under that contract? A. Yes, it did. Q. Have you seen a copy of that grievance? A. Yes, I did. (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 3 for identification.) Q. I show you what has been marked for identification as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 3 and ask you is that what —the document you just referred to? A. Yes, this is a copy of it. Mr. Craramirtaro: Your honor, I now move that it be intro- duced into evidence, except for the handwritten writing at the bottom of that page, which reads: ‘‘Not anyone, rec, r-e-c-, with a vertical line’’. And then the ‘‘Mr. Wiley, old test. Did they’’. That is not offered. Just offering for the basic grievance itself. Mr. Hoveuton: We have no objection, with the under- standing as counsel discussed before on the record, that we will introduce the entire grievance procedure and arbitra- tion. Jupog Barsan : Hearing no objection to General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 3, it is received. [15] (The document heretofore marked as General Oounsel’s Exhibit No. 3 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Now, Mr. Lewis, was that griev- ance, to your knowledge, processed beyond just the filing of that grievance? A. Yes, it was. Q. Did you, yourself, become involved in the processing of that grievance? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you get involved in the early stages or the later stages of the process? A. The latter stages. 10 [16] Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Referring to the grievance PMO-123, did that grievance ever go to arbitration? A. Yes, it did. Q. And was an arbitration hearing held? A. Yes sir, it was. Q. Do you recall the dates on which that arbitration hearing was held? A. It took several dates. Q. So that you might not have to refer to your notes, may we propose a stipulation, Mr. Houghton, that the arbi- tration hearing was held on the following dates: Mr. Hoventon: Yes. Mr. Crarnamitano: May 23, May 24, May 30 and May 31, all in the calendar year of 1973. Mr. Hoventon: That’s correct, with the additional under- standing of the continuation of the hearing, which was con- ducted on July 18, 1974. Mr. Cranamitano: Yes, with that understanding. Mr. Hoventon: Certainly, I so stipulate. Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Mr. Lewis, prior to that arbi- tration hearing, did you, on behalf of your union, make any request of the Detroit Edison Company for information in relationship to [17] that PMO-123 grievance? A. Yes, I did. Q. Were these requests for information made in writing? A. Yes, they were. Q. Were they also made verbally? A. Yes, they were. Q. These written and verbal requests were made at dif- ferent times, is that right? A. Yes, sir, several times. Q. Now the first request for information that was made, was that made in writing or was that verbally? Do you recall? A. In writing. Q. Now, Mr. Lewis, I show you a letter dated March 5, 1973, which is marked for identification as General Coun- sel’s Exhibit No. 4. Is that the letter that you refer to as your first written request? . 11 (The docuinent above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 4 for identification.) A. Yes, this is my first written request. Q. First request of any sort, written or verbal, is that right? A. That’s correct. Mz. Cianamirano: I now offer into evidence, except for the language, the written language at the top, the word ‘*copy’’, which is circled. [18] Ms. Hovexton: No objection. J UDGE Bansan: Hearing no objection, General Counsel’s 4 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 4 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Now after you made that writ- ten request, Mr. Lewis, did you receive any written replies to that request? Referring to a written reply. A. Written reply—yes, I guess I was asked to come to a meeting at the Detroit Edison office and meet with the director of union relations and the company counsel to see if we could come to a meeting of the minds or something. Q. Now I’m not asking about, are you saying that the letter to which you’ve referred asked you to come to some meeting? A. Yes, I believe it did. Q. Is that what you indicated? A. I’m trying to recollect exactly. Q. I show you, Mr. Lewis, what has been marked for identification as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 5. It’s a letter dated March 15, 1973. Is this the reply letter to which you’ve just referred? (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 5 for identification. ) A. May I see my request? 12 [19] Q. Your March fifth letter, I show you GC4. A. Yes. Q. I now move its introduction into evidence. Mr. Hoventon: No. objection. Mr. CraramitTaro: I’d also like it to be noted that the letter is a letter going from Mr. Houghton, himself, to Mr. Lewis. Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Now, Mr. Lewis—— Jupce Barsan: Just a moment. General Counsel’s Ex- hibit No. 5 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 5 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) Jupce Barsan: Go ahead. Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Now, Mr. Lewis, the letter, in its first paragraph, refers to a telephone conversation from March thirteenth, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Is that what you recall, can you relate—that was a telephone conversation with Mr. Houghton, is that right? A. Right. Q. Now, could you relate that conversation as best you recall? A. Well, I think he made it quite clear to me that that company couldn’t give me the actual tests, test batteries and the scores for each of the individual candidates, and things like that, for the reasons given in his opening state- ment—([20] confidentiality and other things. But that if I could come over to the office, maybe something could be worked out. And he says, as long as you’re going to be here on this date, we’ll meet on this date, or some such thing as that. 13 Q. Okay, that was basically the essence of your telephone conversation? A. Right. Q. Then this letter followed? A. Right. Q. And the letter refers to arranging a meeting for Monday, April 2, 1973. Was the meeting, in fact, held on April 2, 19737 A. Yes, it was. Q. Where was that meeting held? A. At the Detroit Edison offices right here in Detroit. Q. Do you recall what time of day that meeting was held? A. I believe it was two o’clock, on time. Q. And were persons representing both the company and the union in attendance at this meeting? A. Just myself for the union and the company had a couple of people there. Q. Do you recall who they were? A. Yes, I think Mr. Houghton was there. I believe Mr. Roskind, who’s sitting here; and the director of union relations, Mr. Ruch. I’m not sure about Mr. Roskind, he might have been, he might not. [21} Q. Now, as best you can recall, can you relate what happened, what was said by whom, at that meeting? A. Yes. Again, the company restated its position that they could not give me the actual test batteries, they couldn’t give me the individual scores, they couldn’t give me indi- vidual’s names attached to individual scores, they couldn’t give me the actual tests. But they did give me a sort of a study or validation or what you might call a justification for the type of tests that they were using for these instru- ment people. And it was a sort of a survey they’d made or it was a report they got from a consultant, I believe, from somewhere else, which kind or justified the type of test they were using. Q. So they gave you some things, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Did they give you any of those items that you had requested? A. No. Mz. Hoventon : Excuse me, are you referring, by request, to the request of March? 14 Tue Witness: I believe I asked for something about vali- dation in that letter, and the report by the National Com- pliance Company, is that what you mean? Mr. Craramrtraro: You mean that report? Tue Witness: Let me—they gave me nothing for the in- dividuals, nothing for the actual test batteries, nothing for grading, no scoring. They gave me a report by the, I believe [22] was the National Compliance Company. And they gave me some kind of a survey they had made of their own psychologist, sort of justifying the type of test they were using. Now whether that was a strict validation or not, I don’t believe it was. I think it was a study they had done by themselves. They were updating the test they were using for instrument man or some such thing. Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) So it may have partially com- plied with you request? A. All right, yes. Q. We stipulated to the various dates of the arbitration meetings, the last one being May 31, 1973. After that arbi- tration hearing closed, were there other times when you reiterated your requests for information concerning the grievance PMO-123? A. Yes, several times. Q. And did those take the form of written requests? A. At the outset of the arbitration, the first morning of the arbitration, I served on the arbitrator a request that he order the tests or subpena the tests or whatever he could do, and subpena these scores so that I would be in a better position to argue this case. Q. That written request, did you give the company rep- resentatives at the arbitration hearings a copy of that re- quest? A. I did. Q. And did the company representatives at that hearing take [23] any position with respect to your request? A. The same position they had previously taken, that they could not involve the actual tests and the actual scores. They could put names alongside of specific scores. And they went through the same argument about this was a test done oan Aes et hee meee 15 7 gd psychologist and they were going to use it and so orth. Q. Were you present during all the days of the arbitra- tion hearings? A. Yes, I was. Q. To your recollection, were the actual tests that you were seeking, were they ever even given just to the arbi- trator? A. No, they were not. Q. The test papers that you were seeking, were they ever just given to the arbitrator? A. No, they were not. Q. The test scores by each individual named, to your knowledge, were they ever given to the arbitrator? A. No, they were not. Q. Not even the arbitrator got that information? A. That’s correct. Q. Did the arbitrator ever direct the production of those items? A. No. He gave some opinions. Q. I’m not asking you about his opinions, I’m asking you were they ever directed. [24] A. He answered that he didn’t think, under state law, state arbitration law, I take it, that he could compel the company to supply the informa- tion. So he could not meet with my request to order the tests, and order the scores or subpena the tests or subpena the scores or whatever, he did not have the authority in the state law. Mr. Hovcuton: Excuse me for interrupting, counsel, just to keep the chronology straight, could we introduce a copy of that written request? Mr. Craramitaro: May twenty-third? Mr. Hovucuton: Yes. Mr. Craramitaro: Do you have copies? Mr. Hovaeuton: Yes, I do. (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 6 for identification.) 16 Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) I guess we can stipulate. Mr. Lewis, I show you what’s been marked for identification as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 6. And is this the written request to the arbitrator to which you just referred? A. That is correct. Mr. Craramitaro: I now move its introduction into evi- dence. Mr. Hoveuton: No objection. Jupce Barsan: General Counsel’s Exhibit 6 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 6 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) [25] Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) I believe you indicated that after the hearing closed, the arbitration hearing, even after, you made written requests of the company for this infor- mation, is that right? A. After the arbitration closed? Q. After May 31, 1973, or requests that referred to your prior requests? A. Yes. After the arbitration had closed, the arbitrator asked the parties to submit briefs. This is usual in most cases. And we then got into a number of situations where I said, now I don’t know how to proceed on the case before the Labor Board, asking for disclosure, and if I got that disclosure my brief would be one way. If I didn’t get that disclosure, my brief might have to be another way. So we had to write ground rules, if you please, on how we would write the briefs. I wanted to protect my interests at the Labor Board. So the Labor Board hadn’t acted on this case too quickly. I took about a whole year, but finally Mr. Houghton, who’s here, and myself, he was the advocate for the company and I was the advocate for the union at the arbitration—we got down to some general ground rules on the writing of the briefs and among the ground rules was that—look, if you’ve got disclosure from the Labor Board and this type of disclosure is such that it 17 gives you new argument or new food for argument, the case can be entirely reopened. That was a stipulation we arrived at when we submitted our briefs [26] to the arbi- trator. But we kept arguing this case about disclosure all the way through, yes. Mr. Craramitaro: Your honor, I think I may be able to very quickly go over these things via the offer into evidence the various stipulated documents which are basically letters and the written agreements to which Mr. Lewis has just referred. Your honor, I think I am now prepared to propose a stipulation—stipulate the introduction of various docu- ments. And they are as follows: Stipulated exhibit GC-7 is a letter dated June 2, 1973, from Mr. Lewis to Mr. Houghton. I’m offering all of that document except the non-typed writing at the top, which reads ‘‘In re: Detrvit Edison Company”’ and the bracket on the left column of that exhibit. (The document above referred to was marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 7 for identification. ) Mr. Hovexton: No objection. Jupce Barsan: This is General Counsel’s Exhibit 7, it’s received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 7 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Mr. Cranamitaro: Then there is GC-8, a letter, with at- tachments, and there are three pages of attachments, dated July 10, 1973, from Mr. Houghton to Mr. Lewis, which makes re- [27] ference to the June 2 letter. (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8 for identification.) Mr. Hoventow : No objection. 18 Jupce Barsan: General Counsel’s Exhibit 8 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Mr. Craramirtaro: Then there is GC-9, a letter dated July 18, 1973, from Mr. Houghton to Mr. Lewis. That letter, in its first sentence, indicates that this is a reply to a July 13, 1973 letter from Mr. Lewis to Mr. Houghton. We are still looking for a copy of that July 13 letter. And, as a further explanation, Mr. Houghton will catch me if I go wrong, my understanding is that when this letter was received by Mr. Lewis, that he typed in at the bottom of page two of that letter, a reply to it, which reply is dated July 23, 1973, and forwarded it back to Mr. Houghton. Is that accurate? Mr. Hoventon: Yes, that is accurate. (The document above referred to was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9 for identification. ) Mr. Craramitaro: So with that explanation, I would like to offer GC-9. Mr. Hoveuton: We have no objection. And we’d like to indicate, your honor, we discussed the July 13 letter. Ap- parently [28] neither of us have copies of it here. And if it’s agreeable, we would stipulate to provide your honor with a copy of that letter so the record is complete—either by mail or through the Board or attaching it to our briefs. Jupce Barsan: First, let me indicate that General Coun- sel’s Exhibit 9 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Jupce Barsan: With respect to the asserted July 13, 1973 letter, if the parties discover the letter within 30 days after ee es ome 19 the close of the hearing, and if you both agree—and this includes Mr. Lewis—if all parties agree the letter is accu- rate and should be received, I will receive it if you send it to me with a proper stipulation. Mr. Crarnamitaro: We can make it a joint submission. Jupce Barsan: And I would suggest—well, General Coun- sel, why don’t you reserve your exhibit No. 13 for the letter dated July 13. Mr. Craramitaro: Okay, fine. JupceE Barsan: And we’ll leave that open in case you submit the letter. Mr. Cranamitaro: Next is GC-10, a letter dated August 6, 1973, from Mr. Houghton to Mr. Lewis. (The above referred to document was marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10 for identification.) [29] Mr. Hoventon: No objection. Jupece Barsan: General Counsel’s Exhibit 10 is received. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10 for identification was thereupon received in evidence. ) Mr. CraramitTaro: As GC-11, a letter from Mr. Lewis, dated August 9, 1973, which is addressed to both the arbi- trator and Mr. Houghton, which enclosed GC-12, which is a bilateral agreement dated August 6, 1973 and executed by both Mr. Houghton and Mr. Lewis. (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 11 for identification and General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 12 for identification. ) Mr. Hoveuton: No objection to either of those two ex- hibits. Jupee Barsan: General Counsei’s Exhibits 11 and 12 are received. 20 (The document heretofore marked as General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 11 for identification and General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 12 for identification were thereupon received in evidence. ) Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Mr. Lewis, the last exhibit we had was the letter of August 9 from you to the arbitrator, which enclosed the written agreement between you and Mr. Houghton, dated August 6. After August 9, 1973, do you recall ever again making any verbal or written re- quests for the information that you had been requesting all along, after August 9, 1973? [30] A. After August 9, 1973? Q. Yes. Reprrect ExaMINAtIoNn Q. (By Mr. Houghton) Doctor, so that I’m sure that I understand some of your last responses, I’d like to try and relate your answers to the issue we have before us today. For example, in making a determination as to the va- lidity or appropriateness of this test, you would need to know such things as scoring formula, would you not? A. No. As to the what? [114] Q. Seoring formula? A. You mean making a de- cision about what? The validity of the test itself. A. No. Q. How the tests are scored? A. No, I wouldn’t need to know that. As long as I knew that they were related to job performance. Q. Now, do you recall, Doctor, when I spoke to you earlier and I asked you to assume you were retained by a union and the union said ‘‘our boys have to take this test battery and we’re concerned as to whether or not— if they had access to the tests themselves, it would in any way assist us in representing the people, if it would in any way assist us in understanding the test. If it would in any way assist us in determining whether the test is valid or not’’. Do you recall that? And what is your answer to that question? 67 Mr. Cranamitaro: Objection, your honor, it calls for a conclusion and the conclusion is not within the witness’s expertise and it is irrelevant. Mr. Hovcuton: I believe it is within the witness’s ex- pertise. It’s certainly within this man’s expertise as to whether or not having the actual tests would in any way be a guide to further understanding the job or the way in which the test is administered. Or whether the test is a good test or [115] a bad test or a valid or an invalid test. Jupce Barsan: That wasn’t your question if I under- stood it. I thought your question was whether or not hav- ing this—having the test itself would be necessarily rele- vant to the union’s ability or right to represent people. Well then, I’ll sustain the objection because I think that that’s not the question. Mr. Hoveuton: I don’t believe that’s the question I asked. Jupce Barsan: I know. I’m saying that—strike all that. Would you repeat your question? My question is this, Doctor. In your opinion, would the union’s having copies of these actual tests, in any way assist the union or its experts in understanding whether or not the test is, in fact, valid? Me. Craramitano: That’s what I’m objecting to. That question which calls for that opinion as to whether it would be beneficial, not for him or for Edison, but beneficial to the charging union and its agents. I don’t think that is an opinion he could give. Jupez Barsan: I’m having trouble. Read me the ques- tion again. (The pending question was read by the reporter.) 68 Jupce Baxsan: I will take the testimony as opinion evidence from a person qualified. THe Witness: My response then, would be that I would not [116] regard the test as helpful to me in making that judgment. Jupce Barsan: But, Doctor, is that because you have the analysis that somebody else made? I thought that was your previous testimony. THe Witness: No, if I were in the position of wanting to know about the test I would ask for the statistical in- formation rather than for the test itself. I would not rely on my judgment simply from looking at the test. Jupce Barsan: But you are, as I understand, discount- ing the value of looking at the test at all. That was the question. Tue Wirvess: Right. Q. (By Mr. Houghton) In other words, Doctor, so we understand. Assume you were asked to pass upon the validity of this test battery. Someone gives you all the information and the Edison has already given you—and then says ‘‘would you like the actual tests themselves’’. As I understand your testimony, you would not need those tests. A. That’s correct. Q. Now let’s contrast that and if I may tell what may be a bizarre example, would having those actual tests in front of you—in order to formulate your opinion—be any more valuable than, for example, having a copy of Life magazine? A. That is somewhat bizarre, but I guess I would not find that any more helpful. {117] Q. In other words, it’s irrelevant to what you’re trying to do, isn’t it? A. In terms of the kind of validity that we’re talking about, that’s right, it’s irrelevant. Q. Now I want to make sure we understand this. We’re talking about psychological aptitude tests here. Now if, 4 for example, we had a test that was designed to measure job knowledge. I take it your answer might be different? A. Yes, it would be different. Q. And in a job knowledge type of measuring test, you most surely would need to see the text? A. Yes. Q. Right. There was one other concept I wasn’t sure we had fully in mind, and that’s this example. The concept, rather, of a cutoff score. If, for example, someone were to give you the actual tests, would you be able to look at those tests and say these cutoff scores should be such and such? A. No, I couldn’t. Q. How do you determine what the cutoff score is? A. You’d have to have a validity study and you’d need to contrast successful performance on the job with less suc- cessful performers and then compare the test scores that they had received, in order to establish a cutoff point. Q. And to determine that cutoff score, as I understand it, you’d utilize a scatter plot of some sort? [118] A. Yes. Q. And then what would you do once you had that? A. Well, I would generally try to maximize the number of correct predictions of the test scores so that I would have the cutting score set at a point where selecting persons would result in the least loss of potentially good persons and rejected persons—I should have said it just the other way around. And selecting persons would result in a mini- mum number of persons who failed. And rejected persons, at the same time, would result in the minimal reject of persons who might otherwise have been successful. Q. Did I understand that you make that type of de- cision without reference to the test itself? A. Yes. Q. I don’t think we need to go through this validation study in all it’s detail, but I wanted to make sure we weren’t under any misunderstanding. You were asked a question as to whether or not you knew if this test battery had ever been used in connection with the instrument man B battery job. As to whether it has or not and as to 70 whether it’s been correlated in the job, don’t you get that information from the validity study? A. It tells me in the validity study that this can be the case. I don’t have an affidavit to justify that inference, but I certainly would make the assumption that everything that is portrayed in here is true. [119] Q. Now assume, Doctor, you wanted to go the next step behind this validity study. Do I understand you that to take that step you might take this step, but you might go to the supporting information that made up the validity study? A. Yes. I’d like to see, perhaps, more detail, tabulations, statistics and perhaps more of the cor- relational data, but that would be my next step. Q. Now the supporting document that would be behind the validity study, that would be not—would include the tests themselves? A. No. Q. You were asked at one point during the cross exami- nation, whether you would be at all concerned in finding out why the particular questions that were used in the test were used? Is it important to you in rendering or making your validity study, why a particular question is used? A. No, it isn’t. Mr. Hoveuton: I believe that’s all I have. Mr, Ciaramitaro: One or two questions, your honor. Reprrect ExaMINATION Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Doctor, if one were to give a different battery of tests—that is different questions—for the same purpose as involved in this case, promotion to an instrument man classification. Would you expect that a validity study would come out identical to the one that we do have. Or [120] would you expect differences in the results of the study? A. I would expect some differences? 71 Q. So the result of a validity study will depend on what battery of what questions are asked, is that right? A. That’s right. Mr. Craramitaro: That’s all, Mr. Lewis: No questions. Jupce Barsan: Doctor, if you will, put up with me just a little bit more. I am not at all sure whether there’s been some change in position here or whether I’m not astute enough to understand what’s going on—the latter is quite possibly true. I originally understood you to tell me that basically you did not need to see the tests themselves because you were relying on the evaluation of the tests made by someone else. Is this correct? Tue Wrrness: I would usually—well if I did not know the evaluation made made by someone else, I would still not find tests themselves useful in trying to evaluate whether ihey were any good or not. The only kind of in- formation that I would find helpful would be a statistical evaluation, or knowledge that might be gained from the test manual and, I guess—I’m not sure I would ever really feel that I coul gain from examples of the actual tests. Jupce Barsan: I now understand you to say that what you [121] are telling me is that -you’re more interested in the results of the past use of the: tests than you are of the contents of the tests? Tue Witness: That’s right. Jupcr Barsan: Do You—and are you also telling me— because this is a question that was asked you—that therefore, this is not exactly the question that was asked you, but it’s a question that troubles me, Are you also saying that therefore, the contents of the tests, could not 72 be of any value to a union representative in representing his people who were concerned by the test? Tuz Wrrness: I think I’m saying that, yes. I would not see that as anything other than a kind of curiosity. I mean satisfying of one’s own curiosity. I wouldn’t see it as a way of evaluating the wisdom of the use of that test. Jupce Barsan: Going back to another matter we dis- cussed earlier. The need of the employees to know—that does not weigh in to this situation at all, then, from your point of view? Tue Witness: Not in this instance. Jupce Barsan: Would you explain why not in this in- stance? F Tue Witness: Well I don’t mean this Detroit Edison, I mean not in this instance in terms of the whole picture of psychological testing. Juvce Barsan: Since I’m taking opinion testimony from [122] you, here we have a group of people—leave Detroit Edison out of it, although this is apparently the situation here—we have a group of people who are seeking a promo- tion which, apparently is guaranteed to them by the union contract, who are complaining that they weren’t given the promotion. And the union contends here that they can’t find out the details why, one of the details being the tests that were given to them. And I am taking from your testimony that it is not—it would not be necessary for the union to have this kind of information to represent those people, Tue Wirtvess: That’s correct. I would—I think the prob- lem will be—well we couldn’t give the test items to poten- tial examinees, because then the tests would quickly be- come worthless. Jupez Barsan: Is that the reason for your—I’d like to have your reason. 73 Tue Wrirness: That would be the major reason. The security of the test demands it not be part of the public domain. Tupce Barpan: That was the reason Mr. Houghton gave quite early in the hearing—basically if the tests were revealed, that its usefulness would be at an end. Is that the basic reason for your answer to me? THe Witness: That’s the basic reason. And a suppli- mentary comment would be that being aware of the kinds of items in the [123] tests, the general nature of the tests’ framework would be useful. But this would not de- pend upon giving the test itself—the actual content of the test to anybody. Jupce Barsan: Thank you very much. Any questions? Mr. Craramitaro: No, your honor. Mr. Hoventon: Just one. FurTHER Repirect ExaMINATION Q. (By Mr. Houghton) At your last answer you said it might be helpful to have types of questions. Did you mean helpful in satisfying this concept of curiosity? A. From a public relations example, Q. That’s what you were referring to? A. Yes. Mr. Hovexton: That’s all I have. Jupce Barsan: You’re excused. Thank you very much. (Witness excused.) Jupce Barsan: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Jupce Barsan: Back on the record. Mr. Hovexton: I call Dr. Roskind. 74 DR. WILLIAM L. ROSKIND a witness called by and on behalf of the Respondent, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows: Direct ExaMINATION Jupce Barsan: Please be seated. [124] Q. (By Mr. Houghton) Dr. Roskind, your full name, for the record? A. William L. Roskind. Q. Where do you reside? A. 27310 Aberdeen, Sough- field, Michigan. Q. Are you employed? A, I’m employed by the Detroit Edison Company. Q. What is your position with the company? A. I am the director of industrial psychology. Q. How long have you held that position? A. Since September the third of this year. Q. Prior to the September third, what was your position with the company? A. I was the acting director for three weeks. Prior to that I was the administrator of psycholog- ical services. Q. Back at the time the tests were given—that are in- volved in this case—what was your position with the de- partment? A. I was working with this department as a research psychologist. Q. Did you yourself personally take part in any way in the administration of this particular test battery? A. I was in on some of the preliminary meetings relative to the development of this test battery and worked on some of the research and suggested the criterion rating scale that was used in this study, And helped with some of the statistical analysis. (125] Q. Is that the statistical analysis that was embodied in the validity study? A. That’s correct. Q. Do you yourself have knowledge as to the way in which this test is administered, how it’s scored and that sort of detail? A. Yes, I do. 75 Q. And do people work for you who have access to the actual company records involving the administration of this test? A, Yes, the individuals who administer this test, work with the records, report to me. Q. All right, now I’d like to look back—and remind you Dr. Roskind, ask you, first of all, when were psychological aptitude tests first used in the company. When were they first used. A. They go back probably some forty years to, I think, 1932, when one of the first psychological apti- tude batteries was used in the selection of men from one of the trades jobs. Q. Now back in the 1930’s, was that prior to the time the union represented employees of the company? A. I don’t know what time the union began its representation of the employees. Q. As a note here, we’ll refer the arbitrators to the col- lective bargaining agreement which sets forth the certifi- eation dates of the various units and they began, I be- lieve, in 1941. Jupee Barsan: I think you were referring to me as the [126] arbitrator. I am not. Go ahead, I’m just a—— Mr. Hovexnton: It’s getting late in the day. Q. (By Mr. Houghton) Looking at the particular job we're involved with today, instrument man work, When were psychological tests first utilized for entrance into that job? Mr. Craramitaro: Objection, your honor. I’ve left sev- eral questions along this line. I’m not sure—I doubt and I believe it’s irrelevant as to when psychological testing began in general or in specific in respect to this case. When it began is irrelevant. Jupce Barpan: Was your last question concerning in- strument men? Mr. Hoveuton: Yes, this particular job, this work. 76 Jupce Barsan: Objection is overruled, Tue Wrrwess: As a part of the study on the selection of powerplant operators, it became apparent that many of the operators were moving into the job of instrument man. And so at the same time that that study was investi- gated back in 1958, this test battery was developed— instrument test battery was developed in use for the selection of instrument men. Q. And it’s been used since that date, to this time? A. That’s correct. Q. You’ve stated that the actual tests themselves, in this case, are kept in confidence. I’d like for you to ex- plain to me, for example, how these tests are utilized by the Edison [127] Company. For example, if you pro- posed to give this test battery to certain of these prospec- tive applicants, what measures are taken to keep the tests confidential? How do you go about keeping copies of the tests and giving them to the people to be administered? A, When individuals are scheduled to take the tests a sufficient number of copies of the tests are taken out of a locked file and taken into the testing room where the appli- cants are already seated and standardized instructions are given to the applicants or employees as to what is ex- pected of them during that testing situation. The instructions for a specific test and samples are given to them so they know what kinds of problems they’re going to be working. While they’re taking the tests, tests are passed out to each of the individuals and as soon as the test is over with, as soon as the standard time is up, the tests are collected and taken out of the testing room and refiled in a locked drawer. So that—and there’s an accounting system whereby we keep track of the number of tests we take into the room and we take out. A test is collected from each person. 77 Q. What would happen, for example, if I had come to you and said I’m a supervisor of the instrument men and I’d like to see what this test is you’re giving to my men. Can I have a copy. [128] A. Well, I’d ask you why you wanted to take a look at the test and what was it you were interested in and discuss the test and the aptitude that the test measures, with you, to help you understand it. But, no, I would not show you a copy of the test. Q. Are these tests disseminated to management? A. No, management of the company does not have access to the tests. Q. Are you familiar, Dr. Roskind—and by the way, di- gressing for a moment, I don’t think I can establish this, Do you have a doctorate in the field of Psychology? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are you familiar with the ethical standards of psy- chologists? A. Yes, I am. Q. Would you tell me where they come from? Who they are applied to? A. The ethical standards were created by the committee working for the American Psychological Association in an attempt to protect the general populace for whom psychologists work and also to protect the American Psychological Association of Practising Psy- chologists from unethical behavior. Q. Now are these standards binding on all psycholo- gists? A, Yes, they are. Q. Are they the same throughout the country? A. Yes. [129] Q. Within the Detroit Edison Company, Doctor, were you the one who made the decision that these par- ticular tests should not be given to the union? A. I’m the one that’s responsible for that decision. Q. And will you tell us why you made that decision in this case? A. From one standpoint we have the ethical standards which forbid the dissemination of psychological aptitude tests to laymen or to people who are not profes- sionally qualified to use the tests. And second of all, we have the problem, the very, very practical problem of test 78 security to the extent that if the tests were disseminated and if they became general knowledge, employees who were interested in bidding on the job of the—the instru- ment man job, then it would destroy the validity of our selection process, And, if we weren’t aware of it, we would be selecting people for that job, who stood, possibly very little chance of being successful on that job. And, furthermore, it would be inappropriate in terms of all the other people who were using those tests. Those tests are used throughout the country and it would be unfair to anyone who’s gone through the trouble of validating a test battery including those tests. Q. To clear up one point, this EPSAT test that we re- fer to, is there only one form of the EPSAT test? A. There is only one form of the EPSAT test. It does not [130] have any parallel forms. Q. What about the Minnesota form board test? A. The Minnesota form board has several parallel forms, equiva- lent copies of the tests which serve in each other’s place, but do not have identical items on each test. Q. If you validate, for example, the test sample was vaiidated in this case. Do I understand you to say you could then substitute some other form of the Minnesota form board test and give it to Edison employees for other evaluations? A. Not exactly. You’d have to do some ad- ditional research to make sure it was operating as to parallel form. It would generally accepted as a parallel test, but it is not exactly the same. You’d have to re-nor- malize the data. We establish norms, not additional re- search. Q. With respect to the Edison, you use only one form of the form board test? A, That’s correct. Every person that takes that test for that job takes that one form of the test. 79 Q. To make sure we understand this concept of validity, supposing you have a job—and I'll call it a crane oper- ator—and you read some articles in the field of say, a perfectly wonderful test that’s been developed to deter- mine whether people are going to be good crane operators, do I understand that even though you would have that literature, before you would actually give that test to Edi- son people, it would be necessary to [131] validate that test with respect to the particular job? A. That’s our policy within the company. We do not accept validation studies done by other organizations, for use in our own company. Because to a large extent, job titles will carry the same title from company to company, but they may, in fact, have critical incidents, critical facts that will be dif- ferent. And without a careful analysis of the job and a statistical analysis to see whether, in fact, that particular test will predict successful performance on that job, it would be inappropriate to use that test as far as our people—— Q. All right, now let’s look at this validation study that the Edison Company performed with respect to this test battery and I believe it’s Respondent’s Exhibit 13. But let me ask you this question first. In preparing the validation study, someone sits down and says all right I’ve got to determine whether this test battery is valid with respect to this job. Would it in any way be necessary for that person to utilize the actual tests themselves? A. No, it would not. Q. What would he do? A. The individual would look at the validation study itself to see the relationship. Q. Excuse me, I’m going a step further. I’m saying there [132] no validation study. Someone is now going to sit down and put together a validation study to validate the test in the first instance. In that situation, would he, in any way, have to utilize the actual tests themselves? A. No, that wouldn’t serve any purpose. It would be more appropriate to look at the various test manuals and to go 80 through the literature and look at other research that’s been done. Assuming that you were about to develop a test battery, you would have analyzed the job. You would have some hypothesis about which aspects of the job, which aptitudes can be measured, which aptitudes would, in fact, predict successful performance on the job. You would then go to the catalogues of tests by research and so on, and look for tests that would measure the aptitudes that you were interested in, the aptitude that you hypothesize is relevant to that job. Q. So we understand, assume again I have this crane operator job, assume hypothetically there are a hundred different aptitnde tests available? I suppose I could start with the first one and go through all one hundred and perform validation studies for each of the tests and then pick the one the most appropriate and suited to my pur- poses. A. That would be very inefficient way of doing it, going through each one, one at a time. Q. In layman’s terms, do I understand you to say in determining which of those tests you want to validate, you use the [133] test manuals and attempt to isolate those tests which you think will be predictive. A. That’s cor- rect, yes. Q. And then, before you actually decide to use them, you do in fact run a validation study? A. You run a complete research program to determine in fact whether those tests will predict performance on the job, before you actually start using those tests for selection. Q. And, again, in running a complete research form, the complete research task, would you have any need to actually use tests themselves? A. You would use the test in terms of administering to people but it would not be necessary for you to sit down and look at copies of the tests other than to satisfy your curiority. Jupee Barsan: The point is, as I understand it, you validate by giving the test to people and checking those people statistically, or am I wrong? 81 Tue Wrrwess: If I may rephrase that, I’d like to ex- plain to you what it is that we do. If we have—— Jupee Barsan: That’s what counsel seems to be asking. Tue Witness: If we have a number of crane operators working for us at the present time and we want to develop a selection battery for selecting future crane operators, we would analyze the job of crane operator and we would develop a rating scale and evaluation to find out who it is that can do [134] do the job well, who can do it on an average level of performance and who is actually doing the job so poorly that if we could, we would prefer not to select any additional men like those who are performing poorly, Having that rating scale and being able to desig- nate which are successful crane operators, averaging poor operators, based on actual performance on the job, we would ask that group of men to come in and take this battery of four or five or six aptitude tests that we hypo- thesize will, in fact predict their performance. We might administer four or five tests and, in the re- search discover that really only two or three of those tests will predict performance. And we made a bad guess on one or two or three or those tests. Jupce Barsan: You would give all of the tests to all of the men? Tue Witness: All the tests. Say if we picked out six tests, we would hypothesize would, in fact, produce per- formance. And in running one of these validity studies as is described in this exhibit number R-13, we would deter- mine which tests actually do predict performance. Which ones will, in fact, predict the high performance individ- uals and which the low performance. And then, those tests, but only those three that in fact did predict performance, would be used in the fut :re. And after a few years a follow-up study would be done to 82 see if the new [135] people would have been selected using that test battery and are in fact performaing the job successfully. Jupce Barsan: Originally those tests on which the poor performance did poorly and tests on which the good per- formers did well, would be your predictive tests, Is that a correct point? Tue Witness: Those tests on which the poor performers did poorly and the high performers did well, would be the tests that we would select for use in selecting batteries for the future. Jupce Barsan: Thank you. Mr. Houghton, I’m very sorry to have interrupted, but I wanted to get some detail. Mr. Hoventon: That’s entirely all right. Q. (By Mr. Houghton) Mr. Roskind, so I understand this, again, from a layman’s standpoint, If you were to tinker with test Latteries and try and make a test battery more predictive and you find, for example, one test was actually exercising a negative function, that it was counter productive and if it was depressing other tests that might be successful predictors, you then eliminate the bad test, is that right? A. That’s correct. Q. Is this sort of thing what’s encompassed in making the validation study, in determining what is and is not an appropriate test battery? A. Generally yes. [136] (A document was marked Respondent’s Exhibit No. 20 for identification. ) Q. I hand you what has been marked proposed Em- ployer’s Exhibit No. 20, and ask you if you can identify that? A, This is a copy of the ethical standards of psy- chologists. Q. And are these the standards that are in effect and have been in effect at all times pertinent to this case? A. That’s correct. 83 Q. And do these standards contain the ethical standards you referred to earlier, regarding the release of testing information? A. Yes, they do. Q. Which standards are those, by number? A. In terms of the principle of test security, that’s principle number 13 of the ethical standards, Q. And what about test interpretation, what principle is that in? A. That’s principle number 14. [137] Q. (By Mr. Houghton) Dr. Roskind, with respect to the results of tests, when employees take tests and they have the results recorded in the company records, what efforts, if any, are made to keep those results confidential? A. Those records are locked in a locked file cabinet in our office and only several individuals who have a need to know have access to those records. The scores are consid- ered highly confidential and are not discussed with anyone that does not have specific need to know. And that’s a very limited group of [138] individuals. Q. Who would be encompassed in that group? A. The people that work directly for me have access to the actual scores in terms of doing some of our research work. Two, the people who administer the tests, and one or two of the psychologists that work with us. But no-one outside of our group has access to the actual test scores. No-one other than professional psychologists. Q. All right, if I were a supervisor, a member of man- agement and I came to you and I said I want to see how my people scored, give me their test scores, what would you require? A. It’s not a question of requiring any- thing. You would not have access to the actual scores by names of employees, Regardless of whatever reason you gave me. The only people outside of our group that get any information at all are the interviewers, who are par- tially responsible for making selection decisions. And all they get is a general evaluation of the person’s perform- ance. 84 In most cases, as we’re talking in this test battery, either the individual has met the standard for the test battery or the individual has not met the test standard. But in terms of the numerical score or the raw scores or the scores on the individual tests, the test battery in parts, that information is not given. Q. What if I came to you and I had a signed release by three [139] of my employees, giving you written author- ity to give me the actual test scores, what would happen? A. I don’t think I would accept that either, Mr. Hough- ton, if the employees came to me and told me that they had some reason why they wanted you to have their test scores and if they signed a release that I had prepared for them, then I would, in fact, give you their test scores if that’s what they wanted. But outside a signed release I could not do it, I would be opening myself up for a suit if the test results were misused. And it would be against the ethical standards of psychologists. We found that it’s actually destructive in a company. When this occurred many, many years ago, before this practice was put into effect, several individuals whose test scores were known to themselves and other individuals that worked with them, were harrassed so much and called stupid and dummy and so on, to the point where they actually left the situation. They quit their job with the company because of harrassment. In order to protect employees from that type of har- rassment, we will not give the test scores to anyone at all without a release of that individual, if the person has a need to know. Q. I’d like to turn to another area, Dr. Roskind, and that has to do with the administration of the tests them- selves. Are the employees given any initial instructions or 85 reference [140] guides when they sit down and take these tests? A. When an employee sits down or an appli- cant sits down and takes the tests, they are given ground rules as to how we operate. They are told approximately how long the test battery is going to take, the kind of tests they’ll be taking. They are asked whether they have any questions or problems, or where they are parking their car. We don’t want people starting a test under any unusual or additional stress. And then they are told that the tests—-how the tests will be used, how the results will be used and that is that the test results will be compared to other individuals who already took the test in the company, and compared to their performance—that they may be used in an additional selection process. And most important of all, that their test results will be kept confidential by our group. And that those test scores will not be released to anyone. Only an interpretation of the overall performance. (A document was marked Respondent’s Exhibit No. 21 for identification.) Q. Dr. Roskind, I hand you what is marked Respond- ent’s Exhibit No. 21 for identification, and ask you if you can identify that for us? A. This is our copy of the in- troduction to testing that is read to all applicants when they come in and sit down, and employees, when they come in and sit down to take the test, And, the point [141] that I mentioned earlier, the statement that the test scores are confidential, relates to this particular principle where we are able to give people who have need to know an interpretation of the overall performance, but not the numerical score. That’s what the applicants or employees are told. 86 Q. And are these the instructions that are told to the applicants taking the instrument man test battery? A. Yes, they were. Mr. Hoveuton: We would offer the exhibit. Mr. Cranamrraro: No objection. Jupce Barsan: Mr. Lewis, any objection? Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so. Is this the same one that was put in at the other? Mr, Hoveuton: Yes. Mr. Lewis: No objection. Jupce Barsan: Respondent’s 21 is received. (The document heretofore marked as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 21 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) Q. (By Mr. Houghton) All right now, in terms, Dr. Ros- kind, of scoring, let’s just assume a group of people sit down and take the test battery, what types of answers are they putting down on paper and how are these answers scored? A. After looking at the question in the test battery, or the tests themselves, they read one of anywhere from two choices, [142] to one of the possibly five choices, And they select the choice they think is most appropriate for the question. Then they go to a separate answer sheet and mark that answer on the answer on the answer sheet with a pencil by marking an area between some dotted lines. That indicates the answer to that question. Q. And then when one of these answer sheets is filled out and turned into the company, how do you go about checking or scoring such an answer sheet? A. A key de- signed for that test, produced by the manufacturer is placed over the answer sheet and the number of correct responses is counted. Prior to that the answer sheet is screened to see whether individuals have possibly marked 87 more than one answer to a given item. And in some cases an additional key is placed over the answer sheet to de- termine the number of wrong answers. Q. Is there any subjectivity involved in the scoring operation? A, It would not matter who did the scoring of the answers. If they were done properly different indi- viduals would arrive at the same scores. So we call that an objective scoring procedure rather than a subjective scoring procedure, when different people might evaluate it differently. Q. Suppose I’m scoring this test and I find an employee has put down marks in two boxes for the same question. Am I supposed to try and decide which box he intended to blacken or how do you handle that? [143] A. The in- dividuals that are taking the test are informed ahead of time that if they, in fact, mark two responses to one item that they receove no credit for that item. It’s counted as wrong. Q. And have you, in the past, Doctor, explained this scoring and its principles involved, to people? A, Yes, I have. (A document was marked Respondent’s Exhibit No. 22 for identification.) Q. Dr. Roskind, I hand you what has been marked Re- spondent’s Exhibit No. 22 and ask you if you can identify this for use? A. This is a copy of the answer sheet for the engineering and physical science test. We’ve been re- ferring to it today as the EPSAT test. Q. And is that the sheet upon which the responses would be recorded? A. That’s correct. . Q. And that is an example of the actual scciing sheet for the test given in this case? A. This is an answer sheet that would be used, yes. Mr. Hoventon: We would offer it. 88 Mr. Craramitano: No objection, your honor. Mr. Lewis: No objection. Jupce Barsan: Respondent’s 22 is received. (The document heretofore marked as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 22 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) [144] (A document was marked Respondent’s Exhibit No. 23 for identification.) Q. Dr. Roskind, I hand you wat has been marked as proposed Respondent’s Exhibit No. 23 and ask you if you can identify that for us? A. This is another answer sheet that is used with the revised Minnesota paper form board test. And it is an actual answer sheet that’s used in prac- tice. Q. Now you say used in practice. You mean this would be an answer sheet that would be actually used when the test is given? A. That’s correct. Mr. Hoveuton. We would offer this exhibit. Mr. Craramitaro: No objection, your honor. Mr. Lewis: No objection. Jupce Barsan: Respondent’s 23 is received. (The document heretofore marked as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 23 for identification was thereupon received in evidence.) (A document was marked as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 24 for identification.) Q. Dr. Roskind, I hand you proposed Respondent’s Exhibit No. 24 and ask you if you can identify that? A. This is a copy of an answer key for the engineering 89 and physical science test that I had prepared specially for this hearing. It is a replica of a key—in that it is not the [145] actual answer sheet that is used, but it is a copy of what the key would look like. Q. And how is that key used by the company in scoring an answer sheet? Could you show us please? A. I don’t have an answer sheet with me. The answer sheet is placed—the key is placed over the answer sheet. It can be lined up and then it’s a simple process of looking through the key to the answer sheet to see which answers have been left blank in order to obtain a count of the correct responses to the items of the test. Q. And is a similar type key used for scoring the paper form board test? A. Yes it is. [146] Cross Examination Q. (By Mr. Ciaramitaro) Dr. Roskind, you’ve explained how the cover sheet is set over the test sheet or test paper. These are checked manually, I understand, by a checker? A. Yes. Q. A human being? A. Yes, normally twice. Q. Pardonme? A. Normally twice. Q. Does the same person check it twice or does it go to somebody else to check? A. Normally it’s checked by the same person. Q. And that same person checks it twice? A. That’s correct. Q. And the result of his checking is recorded where? A. On a test record card, on the answer sheet itself. Q. So the checker will put down how many right an- swers? A. I’m sorry. It is reported on the answer sheet itself and then a clerk—your question was where is it recorded? 90 Q. Right. A. It is reported on the answer sheet itself. Q. Now looking at this example where the cover sheet is superimposed over the answer sheet? Check me, whether I’m right or wrong—on the examples that you have? Well, as 1 look at it, I can only see one possible for each ques- tion. If I look [147-A] through that hole I can only see one double-doited line. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, you indicated before, maybe sometimes a per- son may give two answers to the same question. A. Yes, sir. Q. How is the checker going to see that by superimpos- ing the cover sheet over the answer sheet? A. Okay, I also stated that prior to placing the key on the answer sheet, the answer sheet is looked at to see whether or not an individual las, in fact, recorded two responses to a single item. Q. Okay, so the checker will do that first before he puts the cover sheet over it? A. That’s correct. Q. Dr. Roskind, after the checker checks it the two times, is there ever any further review as to whether the checker made any mistakes? A. There are, from time to time, additional reviews, it is not a systematic procedure as such. If a question comes up the answer sheets are nor- mally held for a year. And if any question comes up they can be reviewed. Q. Has it ever happened, in your experience, where tests have been reviewed in this fashion? A. Yes. [147-B] Q. Have mistakes ever been discovered? A. From time to time, yes. Yes, I guess, yes. We have to discriminate. First we make a count of one wrong or two wrong. ® eo e Q. Now tke custodians of the results of the papers themselves, is it the psychology department? A. That’s right. 91 Q. And then at the employment—someone, some em- ployment department personnel wanted to know what the scores were, they [148] would have to go to the psychology department and request them, is that right? A. That’s right. Q. Assuming that person had been determined to have access, the psychology department would then give that information, is that right? A. The information would be given in terms of whether or not the person met the stand- ards for that test battery or not, not the test scores. Q. So even your own employment department isn’t told the individual’s test scores? A. That’s right. Q. And what if—and if they were to ask for a compari- son between one individual and another individual. What— would you just say one got higher than the other? Or would you not say at all? A. Well we’ve had this conver- sation with them in the past and they understand that once we set a cutting score, people either meet the standard or fail to meet the standard. And, in which case, they don’t ask us which of these two people got the highest score. They don’t feel that our tests are such that it’s appro- priate to make that kind of comparison. If two individ- uals have the minimum necessary qualifications, then, in fact, we consider them both qualified. And the recom- mendation is such that these people are acceptable accord- ing to the test battery. [149] And so we do not make those comparisons for the empoyment department. Q. So it’s just acceptable and not acceptable? A. The term we use is acceptable and not recommended. Q. So if an employee came up and said I can’t believe that guy got a higher score than I did, you’re not going to tell him both scores, you’re just going say he got acceptable and you got not recommended. Is that right? A. Well, with the employee came in to see me I would sit down and go over that employee and give him a much more detailed analysis of his test performance and go into actual scores if that would be helpful, and show him where 92 his scores stand, compared to the norm group that we have. Whether he is high or low, relative to all of the employees who have taken that test. But not relative to any individual that has taken that test. Q. Not only would you handle an employee that way, the same would go for the union, is that right, an employee representative. You wouldn’t even go into some of that depth with an employee representative. Is that right? A. With the employee representative? Q. Yes, for example, like Mr. Lewis? A. Not unless an employee had authorized me to do that. Q. You referred to an experience same time ago—I don’t know—you had a problem with people being har- rassed because their scores became known. Is that right? f150] A. That’s correct. Q. Now what group of people were being harrassed, the people who flunked the test? A. Yes—by other people who had taken the test. Q. These other people who harrassed them were those the people who passed the test? A. Yes. Q. So it was those who passed who were harrassing those that flunked, is that right? A. Well I’m not really that familiar with it. I shouldn’t really say that. That was my understanding, but I’m not really sure of that detail. I think I can safely say this, it was someone who got a higher score than someone else, harrassing the one with the lowest score. Q. At least that? Now you’ve indicated that the battery of tests that were used in the instrument man—that bat- tery of tests, had that same battery had been used for how long? A. This battery was developed in 1958 and has been used continuously since then. There have been some modifications to the battery. Modifications took place in 1970. Q. When you say a modification, a change in a question? A. No. A change in—not the scoring procedure, but the arrival at the acceptable, the cutoff point. 93 Q. Okay, but the same questions have been used since 1958? A. In one of the tests, one of the entire tests— there were [151] three tests used in the test battery prior to 1970 and two tests used after that time. A research study was done at that time that showed that the third test was not making a significant enough contribution to warrant continuing its use. Q. Okay, of those two tests that you continued over—— A. Yes. Q. ——after 1970, did those two tests continue to con- tain the exact same questions as had been used from 1958 to 1970? ‘ 5 cece ee oeece teil -—) “VERB. COMP, “Ockld O6686 O,.51%6 O.970 O.1ts (35) 35) (35) 135) (35) “mMECHs COMP, "Oo2BL O6699 Ge4Il O4656 04392 (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) TOTAL “00148 04609 0.595 O1215 OvdSSe (35) 135) (35) 125i (35) CORRECTED FOR AGE (STO. SCORE) “Os197 O6F35 O4999 O4296 O4616 (35) {35) 135) 135) (35) ($10. SCORE) O0l26 O6227 Oe210 04999 64262 (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) ' TOTAL (STO. SCORE) “0-145 04698 0.596 0-213 04557 (35) 435) (35) (35) (35) WVSTEO TOTAL RATING SCORE Ood82 Oel21 Osle? O+1886 -0.052 135) (35) (35) (os) (35) STEO TOTAL RATING SCORE 0+00% O4256 04266 04379 0.129 ‘35) (35) (25) (35) (35) OF STANDARD SCORES "00208 O-.8613 O4632 O+568 0.556 (33) (35) 435) (3) (3s) [PLE REGRESSION RESULTANT “Ooh? 04002 O1567 06555 0.571 (35) 35) (35) (35) 35) INSTRUMENT MEN O.297 (35) O30 (34) 0-267 (35) 0-015 #25) 0-457 (35) 1-020 (35) 0-352 (35) 0-286 (35) Us295 ‘9s) Gree) (35) 0-571 35) 0.267 {35) o-¢10 (39) 0-570 (35) +100 (35) 0-106 (35) O-e12 (3%) O-*9) (39) PREPAREO BY == WATIONAL COMPLIANCE COMPANY 9/18/72 373 Ind OLTAROIT EDISON COMPANY 9718/72 CORRELATION AMALYSIS FORK SPECIFICO VARIAGLES (SAMPLE SIZES IN PARENTHESES) v AS tase NAME 12 13 is 1s 16 i? is 1 YEARS OF CAPER. MOelGO? —Oel26 -O+1%5S O+302 O+906 —O4200 -0-179 (25) i395) (35) (35) (35) (35) (308 t 2 PERS. (RAW) 06935 O227 0-600 O+l2i Ov258 O-613 C.-602 135) (95) (35) (35) (35) (35) 195) ‘ 3 PERS. CORRECTED FOR AGE Oe9S9 O20 04596 OslG? Be2bS Gesd?2 014587 (35) (33) 435) (35) (35) (35) (35) t 4 Mere 0-206 04999 0-213 0-368 6.379 GeS6% 04555 (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) (35) ea) ‘ S CPSAT 3ise 2 i) 6 35 5 2 i? 3157 lo is is 40 3 . ll 207? 12 a5 26 “5 , 6 a7 207? i2 23 26 *) 5 5 i) 9020 i? 38 Br) «1 io 2 3» i508 15 a 25 de 6 2 26 20380 «#415 29 3x2 *) 10 ‘ 32 2215 «#15 22 Ph) *0 ? 2 as 19 «20 ° 4) 36 2 2 6 969 20 2 i? 32 i i 3 i229 20 19 Pa 56 4a io} 6 1366 20 26 bay do +e) 5 19 2670 By 22 25 *) 3 ae 3007 5 26 26 *2 is 7 2? asro *. 2) a) “s le o 23 3206) 04 27 27 3° 6 . ia 35% ‘ 25 a5 so , > is 3592) 0 « 2? Jo 3) is * a. 32200—Ci 8s 22 2? 21 ai 2 10 2201 $ 22 26 “9 7 8 +P Delo) 8 26 ae) O48 ao 2 a Pt) ee eee 2 25 ve 7 ae GASE IS INSTKUMENT MEN SOV OP SF PEO C ENE EERE HER OV FOV ONC OK Y © osiesrea 13 6 is ae i? 6 91% 7 s 9? 1 6 ‘ s i bt 2) 26 ? 9 17 ”» ‘ 6? as is ~ “9 1% io ’ -s -9 Vv he ad 4 17 fs i217? 3 9 ti ? i “1 i 2) , “6 -* -t 97 420 #20 =2 2 $0 4 fe) ? ? vi ei 22 c 38 #10? i* 3 -8 > Py »- © ©99 2 13 So Se 2 ~ o a) a2 ° =i “9 9? 2 -? =) ié #0 ¥ ” 7% By 43 $ “4 1 S$ 102 is 1) 2 s v1] , -i -> -19 90 9 -32 “12-17 we 7 oe is -0 VE) 100Cti wt °? 7 97 42 ? -1 0 %. 9 5 ) ie a) il ) 2 © 102 > : s“ 2 6» c = 41 6 a2 . 9 a2 ? ® bei i? a) -7 ¥ o io «2 PREPARED OY = vegetable Oe Ce Which countries are most closely associated with the development of the ballet? Ab France and England B) France and Russia a 3 () Germanys and Russia D) England and the U.S. Cj C) Which was settled first? . A) Boston Br Santa Fe a as ( Plymouth Rock 1) St. Augustine Cj CJ With what architectural form is the “thing buttress” assuciated ? A) Gothic By Georgian a 8 () Faxptian D> Romanesque Cj 0) the creel iz used in hunting B! fishing . - t.) dancing D) sculpturing | C) Frank Llovd Wright is noted for his work i A) politic- Be aviation a () sculpture D> architecture Cj [ je What is the final stage in passing an amendment to the constitution 7 \) state ratification By presidential -icnatare a (1) congres-10onal action J). -sagerenme courrt deci-ion [je STOP. GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR WORK. Me Ce Or De De De De [Je [Je [je [je [Je [Jo (Je [ }«. De De De Cle De Oe D2 M> Oe fe [le (Ce Cle [Je {le eames .39 ) 3.003 I. ARITHMETIC Perform the indicated operations for each problem, and write the answer in the provided for it Lse the margin for heuring whenever necessary. In all prolele 37 ‘ 64 involving fractions. reduce your answers to MINED NUMBERS. ith the tractio parts in their LOWEST TERVIS. EXAMPLE: aon w ~ s wn ry | —— 69 At 5.2 | a Sa 3 5; The answer MUST be | . NOT 4 ; on _ or ~ . a _ 2 y Veoes will beaver footer sereerntes ter 4 rh this tent DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTHL you a \KE TOLD TO De seo 1 ) LR ee. ‘ ewte e tote verre wees You will hase four ciate. te work on this tect + DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO Deo se. 6 mts sTor - ~ “ GO BACK AND CHECK ve vr wr) 12 — ceils Ww ~ ve YOUR WOKRK. \. 388 FIGURE CLASSIFICATION la each problem there ate fowr feures at the left. all alike in some was. ane numbered figures at the qyeht bind the one oc the maght which goer, with the the left. and write its number on the line at the far right of the box. EN AMI! o)OO) 3 4 =e ! 2 a The figures at the leit are round, and all but ene ef tho-e at the right are 3 a 6. Fiower flower __ ~e 7; orremmne, If you don't recognize a word, make the best guess you cen, Leave the line blank vs lt 2 a a only if you have no hunch whatever, , ied ii You will have fire minutes to work on this test . 9 fF 8 © eee pe ~ ae DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO se. io. ¢ aMVansuwe 11. ~ owt EP”, 12. Cv.-v ye a 13. ar WV’ s Ih, on TOT ih STOP. GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR WORK. 396 Vill. SCRAMBLED LETTERS Fach problem consists of a rery common five-letter word, but the letters have be» scrambled. You are to try to fied the correct word, and PRINT it on the line at tt right. ENAMPLE: VEORA\ . ABOVE The letters Vb OB A can be rearranged te form the word ABOVE, You will have fire minutes to work on this test, Dr NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. STOP. 397 FHIEW _ aoesentlitaetsiastiddenniananion EWTRI iietnnai habia WORBN a: . TEHWI : niennendiniai BILLT eiteateeniiiimapeemnliagies Eee sieneaieiielaailines AERTW tl seein GE scenes piinenaiivatatanamatase 5: we , _ a ARTON GO BACK AND Cth YOUR WORK. IX. CHECKING Each problem consists of 4 pair of names or a pair of numbers. Hf they are crac’ the same, PRINT a CAPITAL Son the line between them. If they are differ: in any way, PRINT a CAPITAL D on the line between them. EXAMPLES ‘correc: marked) : 1. 80172___D goi92 2. Jones Co. Lid. — $ Jones Co. Ltd 3. 314250 __S_ 314250 + Paul L. Kelley _D _ Paul L. Kells This is a speed and accuracy test. You will have one minute to work on it DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU AKE TOLD TO DO SU. a C. J. Gamble _._. —— C. J. Cambell 147813 _--____._ 147313 Lee, Lewis ____._. Lee, Lewis 72635 _..____. 72938 Armstrong Boynton Inc. — _._ Armstrong Boyton Ine. 8379986 2 ESTO G. W. Reaves __._ GG. W. Reeves 350185 350185 Witt Wiring Service — . _— Witt Wiring Service ‘lishs ~ TEs Cox-Baker and Me \uley __. (ox Baker and MeCauley 9719231 _____ 9716231 J. R. Chase _______ J. RK. Chase 32Wi 32104 Microtone —.____. Mac rotone OMS) _ 9wsl frane Air Conditioning ____— Trane Air Conditioning si59V1 _...__. 443 1 John €. Gravis — John C. Graves 3791S . 2945 Witlock Groe. Wht. — —— Wallock Groe. Mit. Ot775 _..._... 0595S Divisteel . -... — Dinierteel Loobive bmy2i) Giahains Variety Shop - teraham = Variety Shop (iiltehls tite hy PLN. Zithkle I N. Zithel T9295 1 ~. + *2¥a54 VD. Victor Zane: ~ D Nictor Zane: STOP. GO BACK AND CHFCK YOUR WOR. X. PAPER FORM BOARD In each problem. think of the figures in the upper section as the pieces of a jie. puzzle. Thes can be pwtorPpavmara 414 Part Il: Figure Analogies 1. 1 13. 1 2. 4 14, 1 3. 3 15. 2 4. 2 16. 5 o. 1 17. 3 6. 1 18. 3 7. 2 19. 3 8. 2 20. 1 9. 1 21. 1 10. 1 22. 1 11. 3 23. 2 12. 2 24. 3 Part III: Arithmetic Reasoning 1A 16. C 2. C 17. B 3. B 18. C 4. C 19. A ». C 20. C 6. B 21. D 7. EB 22. B 8. A 23. B 9. A 24. C 10. B 25. B 11. A 26. A 12. B 27. B 13. D 28. C 14. A 29. E 15. A 30. EK wwworrre FF DON Ke Oo 415 score 1 NO. CORRECT = NO, OF QUESTIONS ON THIS TEST SCORE 2 NO. CORRECT = NO. OF QUESTIONS ON THIS TEST NO. CORRECT = NO, OF QUESTIONS ON THIS TEST NOW, CHECK YOUR METHODS WITH OUR SIMPLIFIED PROPLEM SOLUTIONS, WHICH FOLLOW DIRECTLY 416 Respondent's Exhibit No. 18 Part Turee: MatHematicaL REASONING Directions: Instead of numbers, letters and symbols are, for the most part, used in the folluwing problems. Per- form the mathematical operation required in order to ar- rive at the correct answer. Example: A man’s salary was X dollars an hour for a 40- hour week and 2X dollars for each hour over 40 hours. What was his salary for the week if he worked 46 hours? (A) 42 X (B) 48X (C) 52X (D) 56X. The correct answer is (C) 52X. i. An automobile travels m miles in k hours. At this rate, how far will it travel in z hours? m (A) — x mx (B) —— m (C)x =— h mh (D) —— x 2. If there is a total of J garbage trucks in operation in a city, covering a total street mileage of N miles at an average speed of E miles per hour, we can find the average street mileage per truck from the above data, without con- sidering (A) the total number of cars (B) the total street mileage (C) the average speed (D) any of these values. 417 3. Clerk A sorts B letters per hour, clerk C sorts D let- ters per hour. The D letters which clerk C sorts exceed those which clerk A sorts by 10 letters per hour. Measured in number sorted per 8-hour day, clerk C exceeds A by (A)*D—B xX 10 (B) (D—B) x8 (C) D+C—A+B (D) C+D—A-+B. 4. The annual salary of a machinist is R dollars more than that of his assistant. His assistant earns V dollars an- nually. The amount in monthly salary, by which the ma- chinist exceeds his assistant, is given by R (Ap —— 12 RV @)— 12 (C) R—V (D) 12V—R. 50 5. If d= m— —, and m is a positive number m which increases in value, d (A) increases in value (B) decreases in value (C) remains unchanged (D) fluctuates up and down in value. 6. If x is less than 10, and y is less than 5, it follows that (A) x is greater than y (B) x—y=5 (C) x= 2y (D) x+y is less than 15. 7. A family of 5 has two employed members earning L dollars a month. The family receives a total semi-monthly 418 relief allowance of M dollars. If the rent allowance is N dol- lars, and the amount spent for food is twice that for rent, the amount spent monthly for all items other than food and rent is (A) L+2M—3N N+L+M 4) (C) L+M—2N 4) N+L+M 8. If psychological studies of college students show K per cent to be emotionally unstable, the number of college students not emotionally unstable per one hundred college students is (A) 100 minus K (B) 100 times (K minus) (C) K minus 1 (D) 1 minus K. 9. If the same quantity is added to both the numerator and the denominator of a proper fraction, the value of the new fraction is (B) (D) (A) the same as the value of the original fraction (B) one greater than the value of the original fraction (C) less than the value of the original fraction (D) greater than the value of the original fraction. 10. A is older than B. With the passage of time (A) the ratio of the ages of A and B remains unchanged (B) the ratio of the ages of A and B increases (C) the ratio of the ages of A and B decreases (D) the difference in their ages varies. 11. Your office wishes to purchase an adding machine. Company X offers you a standard model, less discounts of — 419 10% and 5%. Company Y offers you the same model at the same list price, less discounts of 5% and 10%. Of the two plans, the total discount given by Company X, com- pared to that given by Company Y, is (A) mueh larger (B) slightly larger (C) equal (D) slightly less. 12. Suppose that the loss of water pressure in a hose due to friction is uniformly L pounds per square inch for every foot of hose. Of the following, the best estimate of the total loss in terms of pressure per square inch in a hose H feet long is (A) H plus L pounds (B) H times L pounds (C) H divided by L pounds (D) L divided by H pounds. 13. Suppose that R persons were rescued from burning buildings by firemen in a given year. Suppose also that P persons perished in burning buildings in that year. If R is less than S but greater than T and P is less than both and N, it may safely be concluded that (A) the sum of R and T is greater than S (B) the sum of M and N is greater than P (C) Ris between M and N times as great as P (D) R exceeds P to an indeterminate degree lying some- where between S and N. 14. The sum of two even numbers and one odd number (A) is always odd (B) is always even (C) may be odd or even (D) is never divisible by another number. 420 15. If n represents a certain number, express in terms of n a number that is 4 more than 5 times n. (A) 5n+4 (B) 4n+5 (C) 4n times 5 (D) 5n times 4. 16. Assume that the average time required for a de- partment vehicle to reach the scene of an emergency is M minutes. Solely on the basis of this fact, the one of the following which is the most reasonable inference is that in (A) no case did a vehicle reach the scene of an emer- gency in less than M minutes (B) no case did a vehicle reach the scene of an emer- gency in more than M minutes (C) every case a vehicle reached the scene of an emer- gency in exactly M minutes (D) some cases vehicles reached the scene of an emer- gency after M minutes had elapsed. 17. In a certain year, fires occurred in K ‘‘Type Z’’ multiple dwellings. It is known that L per cent of the M multiple dwellings in New York City are of ‘‘Type Z’’. The fraction of ‘‘Type Z’’ multiple dwellings in which fires occurred during that year was (A) K divided by L times M (B) L times M divided by 100 K (C) K divided by the quantity 100 times L times M (D) 100 K divided by the quantity L times M. 18. When an arithmetical fraction is squared, the result in all cases is (A) greater than the original fraction (B) less than the original fraction (C) equal to the original fraction (D) none of these. 421 19. If x is greater than y, and x is greater than z, it fol- lows that : (A) the average of y and z is less than x (B) y is greater than z (C) x is less than y+z (D) y =z. 20. If A does a job in x days, and B does the same job in y days, what part of the job will they do in one day if they work together? (A) the entire job xX y (B) —+— 2 2 x y (C) —+— “oe 1 1 (D) —+— x sy 21. A certain highway intersection has had A accidents over a ten-year period, resulting in B deaths. What is the yearly average death rate for the intersection? (A) A+B—10 B (B) — 10 A (D) — 10 422 22. A typist can address approximately R envelopes in a 7-hour day. A list containing S addresses is submitted with a request that all envelopes be typed within T hours. The number of typists needed to complete this task would be _ TRS (A) > ww - & - > = = > - > > = = = 3 a 6 7.) « - N tae) > > ¥ > _-_ > cod 3 > - s | w ~ - = Qa. e e 2 . - - — a = = = = = = a b c— =: . . - = = 7 = . = s « « « « i A serem —— —--+ -—— — 2 tena SNIBOTS SS JNIHOYW ik a een AG na arenas = — . —EEE eal ae 2 | sli SIGE ° oC w a 3 0) x 3s 4 oe. ok o |i ss | SS | SRS ERR) El. ” 3) a oe | RN ae Zo $ 3 83 re =] eles FE} _-| =] =] =] >] s| 8 | &]2$ * - - - = - - . _ - - . 7 a - - - - - 7 - - - - ~ a = - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - ~- ~ oO N al N N N N N N N N N N 3 Lae) “ ” mo om 4 m 4 $3 - - —_ - a a - a ~ ~ ~ - 6 4 ¥ - N o Zz w wo ~ @ a o oad > - N mo z w wo ™ @ toa) (=) - ~_ - _ - - - - - - - - - _— - - = - — - - - - - - ~ _ a = * = — ~ = = = ° sd a = qo . ame. v . ~ w w ts & v we = 2 we . w e re c e s ¥ wi v J - N ae] v7 w wo ~ >] a >} = N Lae] bod w ive} ~ @o fo3] j=) - N “ vw w = © - = = fF fF Fe Fe KF HO NeOCOCNOCUNCUCUNCUNN —— — —~ ——_-+— _ —_ —-_-—_ > —_ ——_ — | | } 3937102 NI ——E — _ —_- -—- — — -—— --—-4-— ~— —-— + ooo — -—— _ --- —-- —-— 4-- ---—— — | WOOHKDS HOIH NI {~ tenoney | soahewy | dyewovetnny | Gipweny peg | Lasmsag oerg | — cveetyy | Gawmeny || tating 1 i eg f T saan SpIaGRT Dormcyey Fa) pe EDGe POUPHTT Beky Ged poy, Ladd pC GRD Oy, BLE DIBE) Ma—eg FaDEtT Ay) hy SSP Cll thane PCL wees ee FL 8 wees tues papedws) oped poeuot ise, 82.583 C35" Seen JWANIIVIG * save 7 “—~ JOOHDS ~wOLINBASN! = 9Se"%02 * ave *) Leave 2 - 13S = — os 30% ba > jiva oes abere “ew * ee i m a000 »> - e39n0N — —— Dosw SNIBODS “ see ©) as INIHDVW 1 aawa ow 1S31 JONLdvY JINZIDS WWOISAHd GNV ONINZ3NIONZ YOd 1L9SHS YIMSNYV 449 Respondent's Exhibit No. 24 Respondent's Exhibit No. 23 PART II . c PART III oy ~ PART I © @ _ 1 aais ISL SOALLIAV DMALDS TVOISARA GNV ONTUEINTONE e ‘ e 46 WO MAy “WONMPIMIIO ) /S>GMOVOg> “@ -q4 YEO w ORS ee v9 €9 2 ; o e . ’ a > . . ’ o es) . . 3 c > 09 6S 8s ? a re ¥ , ° > od . 3 a a ¥ ’ o 2 9S SS vs : ’ 8 re] $ . ’ c 3 o ¥ ’ 9 > a . ; zs tS Os ? o 3 . ? e 2 ~ ¥ , ° > © . 3 ‘AONVHD OL HSIM DOA MAMSNYV ANY ATAILAIWNOD AsYHF 87 (ay ¢ 3 Q > o ¥ 3 > # . ’ a 3 ” . ? > vr r ray , c e ¥ ; c 3 . . 3 o 3 ” . 3 > or 6€ St ? . LJ ¥ 2 3 a © o re) 7 . St ce re 3 - e . ; a . ’ 3 > e . } e ¥ 5 I o > & ¥ 5 a 2 ¥ , 82 Lz 92 3 a 2 £ . SI oO 3 ° . > oO > t © 3 c : vz £2 zz 3 e > os . 3 fe] 3 & ¥ S| ec > e ¥ , c 2 oz 61 gt , o > : ¥ ; a ) ” ¥ : 3 3 e ° ; “NOVTE GNY AAVGH GYY SYYVIN MIOA 3MNS Ga 91 Si : rat ; a > * ¥ ; c ba e : , 3 > a ¥ 3 °o 2 2 a: OR it ch , c > 7 ¥ 3 c > 2 ’ , re > * ¥ , co 8 ra 2 ’ o : . ¥ , Q : . . ; 3 > . ¥ ? c v £ z 3 c > oe ¥ , a > e . ’ oa 2 . ¥ , a SWIT2ONG ISL r a - ene ES eee —_ - — — . — i 8 é Q ; , o s ¥ , 2 > . . fad . - Py - v = e = 7 - ’ a 3 s . ; >. : . ’ > a . s SAIIWSOLd BZU2Yud Go 31>e> —— 2 _— _—— ee , = ci.Fsencl Pitel TOEKIS «fandIm SIA VIN —— ee ae ae ~* S02 08. FEES 32¥t6 seOn [wise Severe O7S" $314N3S i, ee 4 ot C_ i aero * ~ dave EE ~~" ——— guruy, PoPeeD Ou wre ise. oe. Ooi." ©" Ser eee. #..° _ THEY H MM ONY ie2er) AG OF8WeIE4 1S3i GYVOB WHOS Y3dVd VLOSINNIW G3SIA3Y sYmree 9 a ¥ 4s ° ¥ €s ” ¥ 4 & * Sr ® ¥ \v x Le ? * ce 62 + . Td et ¥ 4 co ¥ ai . . et a ¥ 6 4 ¥ S e ¥ 1 - ¥ = et © . ! i ° r me 450 Order of the Supreme Court Granting the Petition for Writ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE CLERK WASHINGTON, D.c. 20543 March 27, 1978 John A. McGuinn, Esq. Farmer, Shibley, McGuinn & Flood 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 77-968 Dear Mr. McGuinn: The Court today took the following action in the above case : ‘*The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.’’ Enclosed are memorandums describing the time require- ments and procedures under the Rules. The additional docketing fee of $50, Rule 52(a), is due and payable. Very truly yours, Micuae. Ropak, Jr., Clerk By /s/ June M. Hoffmann (Miss) June M. Hoffmann Assistant Clerk Enclosure --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0859%3A06. Public record. Not legal advice.