Appendix — Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
Supreme Court brief1974
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
INDEX TO APPENDIX.
PAGE
Docket Entries in the District Court ................ 1
Docket Entries in the Court of Appeals ............ 8
Complaint .... . Wau... 2... cece 13
gis aN Sidi a vice vin-aa' soo wee Sa ee 16
Transcript of Proceedings, July 10, 1969 ............ 17
Defendant’s Case:
oen..d. MeKibbin ......... im: 18 29
8 ee 32
St AA PAPO. cece cca K- 33
een Amewer ... .%...... damp: s sec c sce cccence i44
July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court .......... 145
Transcript of Proceedings, May 10, 1971 ............ 167
Plaintiff’s Case:
Seth J. McKibbin ............... 168 169
August 3, 1971, Opinion of the District Court ........ 180
Judgment of the District Court .................... 191
Opinion of the Court of Appeals ................... 195
Judgment of the Court of Appeals ................. 216
ne ak sy | y Rae 217
EXHrirts.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits:
Exhibit 1—Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Inter-
eg |). CES, Aa eee te eee 35
Exhibit 4—Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Inter-
rogatories, Set No. 1. [Exhibit D, Responsive to
gs tg Jie cS © | Mi aeenas eee en a
|
II.
PAGE
Exhibit 6—Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Inter-
rogatories, Set No. 2, to the Extent Not Subject to
Objections Now Pending .....-----------+++++++: a0)
Exhibit 13—Exhibit I to Defendant’s Answers to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set No. 2. [Responsive
to Interrogatory No. V] .....-----+--++eeeerrrtte 54
Exhibit 27—Defendant’s Supplemental Answers to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set No. 2 .......------ 56
Exhibit 30—Hourly Group Number Conversion Table 57
Exhibit 32—Conversion Schedule .......----------- 58
Exhibit 33—Deposition of Edward W. Noble [No-
vember 6, 1968] .......---2- eee eer etter rete 59
Exhibit 34—Evaluation Manual ........------------ 68
Exhibit 36—Hourly Job Evaluation, Job No. 80-1353 .. 72
Exhibit 37—Hourly Job Evaluation, Job No. 80-4658 . . 76
Exhibit 38—Hourly Job Evaluation, Job No. 12-1354 .. 80
Exhibit 39—Hourly Job Evaluation, Job No. 4650 .... od
Exhibit 40—Hourly Job Evaluation, Job No. 95-4672 88
Exhibit 42—A Manual for Occupational Evaluation .. 93
Exhibit 47—Document re: Katherine Kessler ........ 101
Exhibit 48—Document re: Helen M. Callanan ...... 102
Exhibit 49—Document re: Hattie Strong .......-..-- 103
Exhibit 52—Document re: Carl D. Barney .....-.--- 104
Exhibit 53—Document re: James T. Thompson ...... 105
Exhibit 58—Deposition of Seth J. MeKibbin [No-
vember 7, 1968] .......-- 2 eee eee eee ener ttees 106
Exhibit 68-A—Female Schedule for Deriving Rate
Ranges and Steps ......----+--+ssseceresreseeets 123
Exhibit 68-B—Male Schedule for Deriving Rate
Ranges and Steps .......---- +5 -seeeee eres rere 124
Exhibit 69—Revised Hourly Rate Schedule ......... 125
Hil.
PAGE
Exhibit 76-20—Agreement between Corning Glass
Works and the American Flint Glass Workers’
Union of North Ameriea, A.F.L.-C.I.0., Including
Loeal Union No. 1000, January 9, 1964 ............ 127
Exhibit 82—Letter, dated May 4, 1964, from Charles
A. Francik, to Messrs. Bradshaw, Dorwart, Gillen,
itall, Lang, Rhodes, Somers and Yeakey ........ 128
Exhibit 91—Deposition of Arthur J. Agett [No-
vember 7, FOG8 |, 9650 cuss cn cee ad ex eeeneecteasess 131
Exhibit 93—Deposition of Earle Lewis | Noveuliae
, FOG cee eee ss eee bane eee ee pene Feeeens 133
Exhibit 97—Industry Wage Survey ....-........... 140
Exhibit 101—Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Re-
vised Requests for Admissions = Third Set of
TOUOTOOMMIOTAGE o.oo ois ee eae eacdnreesecees 173
Exhibit 101-A—Defendant Corning Glass Works’ Re-
sponse to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions and
Third Set of Interrogatories ..................... 176
Exhibit B—CGW Job Evaluation Installation Rules 177
Exhibit C—Job Evaluation Questions and Answers. 178
Exhibit A—Shift Differential
ere eee eee ee eeeeeeees
DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
JAMES D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor,
Plaintiff,
“
CORNING GLASS WORKS, a Corporation,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 1967-29
Docket Entries
Date
1967
Jan. Filed Complaint.
JS 5 made.
Filed summons-served 1/27/67.
17 Filed Deft’s. Answer.
17 Filed Deft’s Interrogatories, Set No. 1.
Mar. 6 Filed Pitf’s. Answers to Deft’s Interrogatories,
Set No. 1.
13 Filed Pitf’s. Interrogatories to Deft., Set. No. 1. .
29 Filed Stipulation extending deft’s. time to
answer interrogatories, Set No. 1, to 5/1/67.
20
20 Issued summons & copy.
20
1
Feb.
2
Docket Entries in the District Court.
May 5 Filed Deft’s. Answers to Pitf’s. Interrogatories,
| Set. No. 1.
Dec. 22 Filed Pitf’s. Interrogatories to Deft., Set No. 2.
Feb. 5 Filed Deft’s. Motion to Extend Time to Answer
Pitf’s. Interrogatories to Deft., Set No. 2.
5 Filed Deft’s. Objections to Pitf’s. Interrogatories
to Deft., Set No. 2.
12 Filed Deft’s. Notice of Motion for an extension
of time to answer pltf’s. interrogatories, set No.
2, and deft’s. objections to pltf’s. interrogatories,
Set No. 2—ret. 3/11/68—adj. gen.
Mar. 26 Filed Order & Motion for Enlargement of Time
to File Objections to Pitf’s. Interrogatories to
Deft., Set No. 2—Henderson, J. (notice & copy
to Mr. Hughes.)
Apr. 1 Filed Stipulation re Deft’s. Objections to Pitf’s.
Interrogatories to Deft., Set No. 2 (proposed).
15 Filed Stipulation re Deft’s. Objections to Pitf’s.
Interrogatories to Deft., Set No. 2.
Aug. 20 Filed Deft’s. Answers to Pltf’s. Interrogatories,
Set No. 2, to the extent not subject to objections
now pending.
Sept. 4° Filed Decision & Order that deft’s. objections
to interrogatories are overruled and deft. will
answer within 30 days—Henderson, J. (notice &
copy to Messrs. Hughes & Olena.)
a _—
Date
14
9
10
3
Docket Entries in the District Court.
Filed Deft’s. Supplemental Answers to PItf’s.
Interrogatories, Set No. 2. .
Filed Pltf's. Note of Issue—Nov. 1968 Term.
Filed Pitf’s. Notice of Oral Depositions.
%
Filed Order for Substitution of Party Plain-
. tiff—Curtin, J. (notice & copy to Mr. Olena.)
Pretrial Conference (JTC).
Filed Depositions of F. Phillip Hunt, Charles B.
Wilson, Bernard J. Cushing, Thomas Tuthill,
Donald A. McCabe, Earle Lewis, Arthur J.
Agett, Bernard Shinners, Seth McKibbin and
Edward W. Noble (notice to attys).
Filed Deft’s. Amended Answers to Pltf’s. Inter-
rogatories Set No. 1: Interrogatories Nos. 6 & 7.
Filed Pitf’s. Interrogatories to Deft.
Filed Deft’s. Motion for Protective Order—ret.
Trial before Judge Curtin.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed-
ings held 7/8/69 (Vol. I).
Trial Contd.
Trial Contd.
Date
1969
July 11
15
18
1970
July 10
10
10
4
Docket Entries in the District Court.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed-
ings (Vol. 2, 3 & Index).
Trial Contd.—Submitted.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed-
ings (Vol. IV).
Filed Deft’s. Motion to Amend Answer to Con-
form to the Evidence.
Filed Deft’s. Amended Answer.
Filed Decision & Order that the deft. is re-
strained from withholding the payment of wages
due for the périod from 11/1/64 to 11/68, ete.—
Curtin, J. (notice & copy to Mr. LaRuffa and
Reed, Smith, Shaw, etc.)
Filed Pitf’s. Motion to Amend and Make Addi-
tional Findings and Grant Further Injunctive
Relief—Hearing 9/18/70—adj. 11/10.
Filed Affidavits—Victor Foinsbee, Norma Hart-
well and John Bloise.
Filed Pitf’s. Request.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed-
ings of 9/18/70.
Filed Deft’s. Motion to bring in additional defen-
dants—ret. 11/13/70—D.
Date
1970
Oct. 26
Nov. 30
Dee. 2
Dec. 3
9
14
14
28
28
5
Docket Entries in the District Court.
Filed Pitf’s. Notice of Motion for an Order com-
pelling Deft., to respond to request for admis-
sions, etc.—ret. 11/13/70—Deft. must answer or
object to interrogatories by 12/11/70. Argu-
ments on objections to be heard on 12/18/70—
Pitf. to answer by 12/24/70. Deft. to answer by ,
1/29/71.
Filed Deft’s. Request for Admissions & Second
Set of Interrogatories.
Filed Order denying Pitf’s. Motion to amend
Order of 7/10/70 and denying Deft's. Motion to
bring in additional defendants. ete.— Curtin, J.
(Notice & copy to Messrs. LaRuffa, Olena &
Reed, Smith).
Filed Deft’s Request for Admissions & Second
Set of Interrogatories.
Filed Court Reporter's Transcript of Proceed-
ings of 11/13/70.
Filed Pitf’s. Answers to Deft'’s. Request for
Admissions & Second Set of Interrogatories.
Filed Deft., Corning Glass Works’ Response to
Pitf’s. Requests for Admissions & Third Set of
Interrogatories. ;
Filed Pitf’s. Revised Requests for Admissions &
Third Set of Interrogatories.
Filed Pitf’s. Revised Answers to Deft’s. Request
For Admissions & Second Set of Interroga-
tories.
6
Docket Entries in the District Court.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed-
ings of 12/18/70.
Filed Deft’s. Answers to Pitf’s. revised requests
for admissions & Third Set of Interrogatories.
Motion by Pitf., to amend court’s finding & for
further injunctive relief—attys. to file proposed
findings of fact & conclusions of law by 7/10/71.
Filed Pitf’s. Notice of Motion for an order per-
mitting the addition of certain Exhibits—ret.
5/26/71.
Filed Court Reporter’s Transcript of Proceed- —
ings of 5/10/71.
Filed Decision & Order restraining Deft., from
withholding payment of wages due Deft’s., em-
ployees under the Fair Labor Standards Act;
granting Plitf’s., application for an injunction
and enjoining the Deft., from future violations
of the Act and fixing interest rate of 6% on
amounts withheld, ete—Curtin, J. (notice &
copy to Messrs. LaRuffa, Olena and Reed,
Smith, ete. and Isabelle Cappello).
JS 6 made.
Filed Deft’s. Notice of Appeal (copy mailed to
Mr. LaRuffa).
Filed Motion for extension of time for trans-
mission of record on appeal and Order extend-
ing time to 12/9/71—Curtin, J. (notice & copy
to Mr. LaRuffa).
7
Docket Entries in the District Court.
Filed Pitf’s. Notice of Settlement—ret. 11 /19/71
adj. generally.
Filed Pitf’s. Affidavit of Service of Notice of
Settlement.
Filed Judgment—Curtin, J. (notice & copy to
Mr. Olena).
Filed Motion and Order for Stay of Judgment—
Curtin, J. (notice & copy to Mr. LaRuffa).
Filed Affidavit re annual report of Corning
Glass Works.
Filed Exhibit “A” to Judgment—Deft’s. Lia-
bility Computation 11/1/64 thru 6/27/71.
Filed copy of order of U. S. Court of Appeals
extending time to file record and docket appeal
to 3/13/72.
Filed Deft’s. Notice of Appeal (copy mailed to
Mr. LaRuffa and to Clerk, CCA with copy of
docket entries).
Filed Bond for $500 costs on appeal in form of
letter transmitting checks.
8
DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE COURT OF AFPEALS.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For THE Seconp Circuit
AppraL From WEsTERN District or NEw YORK
Case No. 72-1229
Title of Case:
JAMES D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Vv.
CORNING GLASS WORKS, a Corporation,
Defendant-A ppellant.
(& in 72-1230)
TRANSFERRED FROM MR 5003 Calendar No. 252
Attorneys for Appellee:
Francis V. LaRuffa
Regional Solicitor
U. S. Dept. of Labor
341 Ninth Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10001
9
Docket Entries in the Court of Appeals.
Attorneys for Appellant:
(from order dated 8/3/71) a“
Harry H. Weil
Seott F. Zimmerman
Walter P. DeForest
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
747 Union Trust Building
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
(412 288-3131)
No. Below: Civ-1967-29
Judge Below: J. T. Curtin
Date of Decision & Order: 8/3/71
_ Notice of Appeal Filed: 10/1/71
Docket Entries
Date
12- 3-71 Filed motion for extension of time to transmit
record and docket appeal with proof of service.
12- 8-71 Filed order granting motion for extension of
time to file record and docket appeal to 3-13-72.
1-31-72 Filed copies of docket entries and notice of
appeal.
3- 3-72 Received docket fee (from order dated 8-3-71).
4-13-72
S- 1-72
5-22-72
5-23-72
7T- 3-72
7T- 5-72
10
Docket Entries in the Court of Appeals.
Received docket fee (from judgment entered 11-
30-71) (& in 72-1230).
Filed order consolidating appeals and extend-
ing time to transmit and docket the record by
3-13-72 (& in 72-1230).
Filed partial record (original papers of district
court).
Filed stipulation re: deferred appendix (& in
72-1230).
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap-
pellant’s brief and designation of contents of
appendix (& in 72-1230).
Filed order granting motion for extension of
time to file appellant’s brief and designation of
contents of appendix to 4-28-72.
Filed brief, appellant with proof of service (&
in 72-1230)—by mail.
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap-
pellee’s brief with proof of service (& in 72-
1230).
Filed order granting motion for extension of
time to file appellee’s brief to 6-30-72 (& in 72-
1230). Les oo
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap
pellee’s brief with proof of service.
Filed order extending time to file appellee’s
brief to 7-10-72.
Date
7-12-72
8 3-72
8- 9-72
8-11-72
8-31-72
8-31-72
11
Docket Entries in the Court of Appeals.
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap-
pellee’s brief with proof of service (& in 72-
1230).
Filed order granting motion to extend time to
file appellee’s brief to 7-17-72 (& in 72-1230).
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap-
pellee’s brief with proof <i service.
Filed order granting motion to extend time to
file appellee’s brief to 7-21-72.
Filed order granting leave to file page proof
copies appellee’s brief.
Filed 4 copies page proof brief, appellee (& in
72-1230).
Filed motion for extension of time to file ap-
pellant’s reply brief and joint appendix with
proof of service.
Filed order granting motion to extend time to
file appellant’s reply brief and joint appendix
to 8-14-72.
Filed motion for extension of_time to file ap-
pellant’s reply brief and joint appendix with
proof of service.
Filed order granting motion for extension of
time to file appellant’s brief and joint appendix
to 8-28-72.
Filed brief, appellant (by mail).
Filed reply brief, appellant (by mail).
Date
8-31-72
9-12-72
1- 473
2- 2-73
2- 2-73
2-21-73
3- 5-73
4-20-73
4-20-73
4-26-73
5- 2-73
7— 2-73
7-20-73
12-26-73
Docket Entries in the Court of Appeals.
12
Filed joint appendix, with proof of service (by
mail).
Filed brief, appellee with proof of service.
Argument heard (by: Friendly, Ch. J., Kauf-
man, C. J. and Holden, D. J.) (& in 72-1230).
Judgment Modified and Affirmed, Friendly, Ch.
J. (& in 72-1230).
Filed judgment (& in 72-1230).
Filed motion to stay the issuance of the mandate
pursuant to 41 (b) with p/s.
Filed order granting motion to stay issuance
of the mandate pursuant to 41(b); no bond is
required (& in 72-1230).
Certified original record and proceedings for:
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay.
Filed notice by Supreme Court extending time to
file a writ of certiorari to 7-2-73.
Filed motion to further stay the issuance of the
mandate with p/s.
Filed order granting motion to further stay the
issuance of the mandate to 7-2-73 (& in 72-1230).
Filed notice of filing of petition for writ of
certiorari (& in 72-1230) (S. C. No. 73-29).
Filed receipt by Supreme Court of original
record.
Filed certified copy of order of Supreme Court
granting petition for writ of certiorari (& in
72-1230).
13
COMPLAINT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
JAMES D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor,
United States Department of Labor,
Platntiff,
v.
CORNING GLASS WORKS, a Corporation,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 1967-29.
Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin defendant from vio-
lating the provisions of Sections 15(a) (1) and 15(a) (2)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, [52
Stat. 1060; 29 U.S.C. 201-219], hereinafter called the Act,
and to restrain any withholding of payment of wages
found by the Court to be due to employees under the
Act.
I.
Jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon this Court
by Section 17 of the Act.
II
Defendant, CORNING GLASS WORKS, is and at all
times hereinafter mentioned was a New York corporation
having an office and place of business at Corning, Steuben
County, State of New York, within the jurisdiction of this
Court, and is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of glassware.
ba
14
Complaint.
Il.
At all times hereinafter mentioned defendant employed,
and it is employing, many employees in and about its
aforesaid place of business in the manufacture and dis-
tribution of diverse types of glasses and glassware. Sub-
stantial quantities of the goods produced by these em-
ployees have been and are being produced for commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and have been and are
being transported. offered for transportation, shipped, de-
livered. and sold in commerce from defendant’s aforesaid
place of business to other states.
IV.
Defendant, an emplover having employees subject to
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, as aforesaid, has
repeatedly violated, and it is violating, the provisions of
Sections 6(d) and 15(a)(2) of the Act by discriminating.
within its aforesaid establishment in which such employees
have been and are employed, between employees on the
basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such estab-
lishment at rates less than the rates at which it pays
wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establish-
ment for equal work on jobs, the performance of which
requires equal skill, effort. and responsibility. and which
are performed under similar working conditions.
V.
Defendant has repeatedly violated, and it is violating,
the provisions of Section 15( a)(1) of the Act in that it has
transported, offered for transportation, shipped, delivered,
and sold in interstate commerce, from its aforesaid place
of business to other states, goods in the production of
which many of its employees were employed in violation
of Section 6 of the Act, as alleged.
15
Complaint.
VI.
Since on or about June 11, 1964 defendant has repeatedly
violated, and it is violating, the aforesaid provisions of
the Act. A judgment enjoining and restraining the viola-
tions hereinabove alleged is expressly authorized by See-
tion 17 of the Act.
WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, plaintiff
prays judgment permanently enjoining defendant, its offi-
cers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in
active concert or participation with them from violating
the provisions of Sections 15(a)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the
Act, and for such other and f urther relief as may be neces-
sary and appropriate, including the restraint of any with-
holding of payment of wages found by the Court to be
due to employees under the Act.
CHARLES DONAHUE,
Solicitor,
JOHN A. HUGHES,
Regional Attorney,
FRANCIS V. LaRUFPA,
Supervising Attorney,
United States Department of Labor,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Post Office Address:
John A. Hughes,
Regional Attorney,
U. S. Dept. of Labor,
341 Ninth Avenue,
New York, N. Y. 10001.
(Filed, January 20, 1967]
16
ANSWER.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Defendant, Corning Glass Works, files the following An-
swer to the Complaint in the above-captioned case:
‘1. The averments of Paragraphs I, II and III of the
Complaint are admitted.
9. The averments of Paragraphs IV, V and VI of the
Complaint are denied.
WHEREFORE. Defendant prays that the Complaint be
dismissed.
[B/ vscocccccccccccceteccccccscees
HODGSON, RUSS, ANDREWS,
WOODS & GOODYEAR,
800 M & T Building,
Buffalo, New York.
lL PP P
[Bl woscccccncrcnccccesccrccscsee®
LEONARD L. SCHEINHOLTZ,
REED, SMITH, SHAW & McCLAY,
747 Union Trust Building,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Counsel for Defendant,
Corning Glass Works.
[Filed, February 17, 1967}
17
[389] TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JULY 10, 1969.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New Yorx
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Proceedings of trial held before the Hon. John T. Cur-
tin, United States District Court Judge, at the United
States Court House, Buffalo, New York, resuming on July
10, 1969,
Appearances :
Francis V. LaRuffa, Chief Trial Attorney, and Mrs.
Isabelle R. Cappello, Deputy Counsel for Regional Litiga-
tion, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Attorneys for the Defend-
ant; John G. Wayman, Esq., and Scott F. Zimmerman,
Esq., of Counsel.
—_—_—__.
[400] The Court: Let us leave that as it is. All right.
What do we have? Do we have any testimony today or
any other offers? .
Mrs. Cappello: Your Honor. the Government has re-
viewed its case and we believe we have established what
we set out to prove and anything further would be enmula-
tive and therefore we plan to rest and do rest.
[404] Mr. Wayman: If it please the Court, I have de-
cided that I do not wish to make any motions at this time.
I would prefer to go ahead with my witnesses.
18
Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
[405] SETH J. McKIBBIN (137 Davis Street, Painted
Post. New York), being duly sworn as a witness on behalf
of the Defendant, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wayman:
[410] Mr. Wayman: Yes, sir.
The Court: You said,—maybe this is explained
somewhere else,—‘“steady third shift rate”. What
do you mean by a steady third shift rate?
Mr. Wayman: For Inspectors. al
The Court: What do you mean by that?
The Witness: We have had a past practice, your
Honor, of paying Inspectors on the night shift a
different rate than we have paid the day shift In-
. gpectors, and it was originated back in the 1927 to
1930 era. .
The Court: All right. Go ahead. Mr. Wayman.
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Has that steady third shift rate ever been paid ex-
cept to employees on the steady third shift? A. No, sir,
not to the best of my knowledge.
The Court: Now,—go ahead, Mr. Wayman. Per-
haps right now, your prior question had to do only
with inspection jobs. Now you talk about all jobs.
Mr. Wayman: I am speaking only of the inspec-
tion jobs, your Honor. May T amend the question,
your Honor?
The Court: All right.
19
Seth J. McK ibbin—Direct.
By Mr. Wayman:
[411] Q. Has that steady third shift rate for Inspectors
ever been paid to any employees except employees who
work on the steady third shift? A. That is the question T
answered before. Yes, IT understood it was inspection.
Q. Did you search the records to see whether or not it
has? <A. Yes.
Q. And your finding was it had not been paid to any-
hody except those employees? A. That is right.
~ Q. Whether they were men or whether they were
women? A. This applicable rate was paid to men or
women who worked the night shift.
Q. Now, do I understand correctly that there is a
change in that as a result of recent contract negotiations ?
A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q. What was the change? A. Part of our recent nego-
tiations which were consummated in J anuary of 1969, the
Union and Management groups agreed to install a new job
evaluation program in the Corning area, and as a result
of that we currently have the one job for inspection for
the new people that we may hire after January 20, 1969.
[414] Q. What, if anything, happened on June 1, 1966,
that changed that? A. On June 1st, 1966, as a result of
an agreement between the union and the management
groups, we consolidated our seniority lists and thereafter
applied employee rights to jobs in accordance with one
seniority list.
Q. Did that mean that women could take jobs, if they
had the seniority on the steady third shift? A. They
could, very well.
Q. Did any of them do it? A. Yes, they did in fact.
20
Seth J. McK ibbin—Direct.
Q. When they worked on the steady third shift, did
they receive the same that the men received on this
steady third shift? A. aa sir.
Q. Did any men work on the first and second shifts?
A. They did. mt
Q. What rate did they receive Nb. The same rate
that the women working the day and afternoon shifts
received.
Q. I’m going to ask you to look at Plaintiff’s Exhibit
12, which has been entered in the record, and ask you
whether or not, looking at that exhibit and the [415] infor-
mation contained therein, vou can tell us the earliest date
on which any employee having seniority. would have been
able to take a job on the steady third shift as an inspector?
Can you do that by looking at that exhibit? A. Yes, if I
may stand.
The Court: Surely.
The Witness: May I use a particular plant as a
specimen, for example “A” Factory?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wayman: May we go off the record a moment,
your Honor.
The Court: If you desire.
(Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion en-
sued.)
The Court: For the convenience of the witness,
we have permitted him to use a copy of Exhibit 12,
which he had marked some notes in as an aid to
his testimony. Plaintiff’s counsel have an oppor-
tunity to look at these if she desires on cross exami-
nation.
21
Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
The Witness: By analyzing the information that
is in this particular exhibit, and T happen to be
looking at “A” Factory—
The Court: Is there a page or some other refer-
ence to this, Mr. McKibbin?
The Witness: I am afraid the pages are not
numbered correctly, so that you can go from one
copy to another.
The Court: .Ts there some way vou can refer to
that page?
The Witness: Yes.
[416]
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Can you give us the name and number of the person
to whom you are referring? A. If you look at the infor-
mation on women in “A” Factory, on job code 4570 as a
for instance, this is one of the inspection job codes identi-
fied in the exhibit introduction.
Q. Is that night inspection? A. That is a night in-
spection occupation, yes. And, the week of June 1, the
week which included June 1, 1966, in this, nomenclature,
was the 23rd week of 1966, and we-find that we had women
with relatively junior service dates going on there as early
as the 42nd week of 1966.
Q. What would be the 42nd week, what month? A.
That would be about October or November. T have a con-
version schedule, but it’s not with me. We had two em-
ployees with 1966 service dates. These people [417] were
specifically hired May 18, 1966. That is their service date
listed on this exhibit.
The Court: Does it give the name?
The Witness: Yes. sir. Their names are C. V.
Furney, employee No. 32756. The second employee
22
Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
listed on this exhibit is W. H. Stewart, employee
No. 87375.
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. You say their service dates were May 18, 1966? A.
That is correct.
Q. That means they were hired then? A. Yes. That
is when they started employment.
Q. They took the night inspection job 4570? A. That’s
right.
Q. In the 42nd week? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, what sienifieance does that have as to anybody
that had a service date earlier than May 18, 1966% A. In
accordance with our seniority rules that are in effect, any
employee who hac wanted to go on the night inspection
job, could have transferred ahead of this new employee
going on that job. by exercise of his or her seniority sub-
sequent to the June 1, 1966 date.
Q. All right. Have you any other examples such as
Furney and Stewart? [418] A. Yes, T do find the same
thing in Pressware.
Q. All right. Would vou do that please? A. TI have
identified R. J. Jellison. emplovee No. 47911, who went on
the job code 4551, which was a TV inspector nights, on
the 23rd week of the vear, 1966. which would he the week
which included June 1, of that vear and at that time, ac-
cording to the exhibit, his service date was May 9. 1966,
and T wonld draw the same conclusion that anv employee
wishing to go on nights. could have done so.
Mr. LaRuffa: T move that that be stricken, your
Honor. Any conclusion that ean he drawn from that
would be drawn by the Court.
23
Seth J. McK tbbin—Direct.
The Court: Al] right, overruled.
his answer.
[419] By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Go ahead, Mr. McKibbin. A. [| would conclude
from this information that any employee whose service
date was prior to 5/9/66, could very well have taken a job
if he or she exercised his rights under the contract.
Q. His seniority rights vou speak of? A. Yes.
The Court:
lady or a man?
The Witness:
The Court:
a woman?
The Witness: Right. T could find a woman under
similar cireumstances. T have not taken time to. T
just spotted a couple before T came in.
The Court: How do you tell the difference be-
tween men and women?
The Witness: Tn the right-hand column there is
a column called “Sex” and there is an “M” or an
oN.
I will permit
Ts this individual Jellison, is that a
That is a man, vour Honor.
The prior one yon told us about was
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. So that by reference to this exhibit without going
through the whole thing and picking out all of them, we
find somebody that was hired on to the [420] night inspec-
tion job, we know anybody having seniority as of that date
could have taken the job if they desired? A. Yes.
Mr. LaRuffa: T object to the leading. After all,
Mr. McKibbin is Mr. Wayman’s witness and he is
not on cross examination.
24
Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
The Court: I realize it is leading, Mr. LaRuffa,
but I will overrule the objection. It is difficult to
testify from these documents. Overruled.
[421] By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Can vou tell us some shift differentials which you
found in vour research in this part of New York State
that might be as high or higher than the differential paid
the night shift rate inspection and the day shift rate?
[422] Mrs. Cappello: Your Honor, we object unless it
is confined to the glass industry.
The Court: TI will listen to it. As far as mate-
riality and relevancy, we will determine that after
listening to the testimony.
Mr. Wayman: It might well go to the weight.
My own argument has heen what somebody else
pays is irrelevant, but we have heard others and I
would like Mr. McKibbin to give us the result of
his study. Can you answer that?
’ The Court: If we are in the Corning or Elmira
area and there is other industry other than glass
there, an individual can hire out to other,—let’s say
machine shops or other industry, wouldn’t that have
some bearing upon what the night shift differential
would be?
Mrs. Cappello: We know, vour Honor, the cir-
cumstances of why they were on three shifts in the
glass industry. They have Lehrs continually turn-
ing out glass. We would have to know the circum-
stances why they are running a third shift.
The Court: Each business is different. Go ahead.
25
Seth J. McK ibbin—Direct.
[423] The Witness: As TI understand the question, my
answer would be, yes, I have researched the shift
differential paid steady night shifts in our Western
New York area generally, and I can cite several in
the immediate vicinity. We have General Electric
and Westinghouse plants who are competitors in
our labor market area. ,
By Mr. Wayman:
(). Where are they located? A. Westinghouse is in
Horseheads which is 12 to 14 miles. I am not specific, but
it is of that magnitude, to our east. They also have a
plant in Bath, some 20 miles away. In their Horseheads
_plant their contract calls for a 10 per cent shift differen-
tial.
The Court: This is Westinghouse?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: At Horseheads?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Could von tell us generally about
how many emplovees there are, what they make
there and so on?
The Witness: They process glass tubes, glass
envelopes, and they make glass, specialty [424]
glass tubes for radar and X-ray and this type thing.
T am not intimately familiar with their product line.
The Court: Just generally speaking?
The Witness: Generally speaking.
The Court: All right.
-° By Mr. Wayman:
‘Q. Do you have any idea of the approximate number
of employees? A. I believe it is around 900.
26
Seth J. McKitbbin—Direct.
Q. I think you mentioned General Electric? A. Gen-
eral Electric has a foundry in Elmira City which is 15 to
18 miles, something like that. It is a couple miles beyond,
the Westinghouse plant. They likewise pay a 10 per cent
steady night shift differential in that plant. It is a foun-
dry and T am not sure what product they make beyond
that.
Q. The approximate number of employees, if you can
remember? <A. I helieve it is around 750.
Q. Have you checked any other large employers in
Western New York?
Mr. LaRuffa: If vour Honor please, is it your
Honor’s decision to permit the witness to answer
as to any industry in this area?
The Court: Just a minute, Mr. LaRuffa. Let’s
[425] take them one at a time. When vou say
“Western New York”—
Mr. Wayman: We will give the location.
The Court: Let’s give the location so we can have
definite objections and rulings.
The Witness: I have knowledge of three or four
other companies in the Western New York area.
Xerox in Rochester has a contract that calls for a
shift differential on the night shift of 50 cents.
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Yon say “a contract”. Do you mean a Union Con-
tract? <A. Yes.
Mr. LaRuffa: T object. your Honor.
The Court: You object to Xerox in Rochester!
Mr. LaRuffa: I am, because if we are now deal-
ing with the glass industry—
27
Seth J. McK ibbin—Direct.
The Court: We are not, certainly not.—different
factors. How far is Rochester from Corning?
The Witness: 85 to 90 miles.
The Court: Then—
Mr. LaRuffa: We have different factors, if your
Honor will hear them.
The Court: I think, Mr. Wayman. what I will do
here, Mr. Wayman, I will defer ruling [426] on this.
We have Mr. McKibbin here. He has made the
study and we presume he has made it accurately.
T will defer ruling on this. My present thought is
we are getting far afield. Tf von can convince me
later on T should consider, T will.
Mr. Wayman: T would like to offer the evidence
and we can argue about the weight and materiality.
Mr. LaRuffa: Yonr Honor. T want to indicate
this—
The Court: You continue to object. Mr. LaRuffa.
as we go on and we will rule on it later on.
Mr. LaRuffa: T merely want to bring—
The Court: Mr. McKibbin is here.
Mr. LaRuffa: IT merely want to bring to the
Court’s attention when we are speaking of Roches-
ter we have a different labor situation in Rochester.
The Court: T realize that. That is a matter of
argument T will listen to. T appreciate all those
things, but vou object as we go on so we have a
record. Xerox vou object to. T will defer on that.
By Mr. Wayman:
[427] Q. Any others? A. T have two others, Kodak in
Rochester pays 121% percent. but not less than 30 cents.
28
Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Mr. LaRuffa: I object.
The Court: All right, deferred. That would be
in all the Kodak plants?
The Witness: In Rochester, New York, ves, sir.
The Court: Twelve and one half?
The Witnéss: It is the formula paid shift differ-
ential on the late night shift is 1214 percent, but
not less than 30 cents.
The Court: All right. .
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. All right. Any others? A. One other is IBM
down in Owego, New York, has an establishment there,
and their shift differential on the late night shift is 14
percent.
Mr. LaRuffa: Same objection.
The Court: Deferred. Mr. McKibbin. vour study
was made this vear?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: As of now?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor.
[428] The Court: Now, do you know, did you make any
study as to whether these men’s jobs, or ladies’ jobs,
or did you make a study in that regard?
The Witness: I did not inquire into the sex of the
employees that worked there, your Honor.
The Court: Fine.
Mr. Wayman: I am sure that everybody in this
room, perhaps except as to Mr. Zimmerman and
myself, knows where Owego is. I don’t know. Could
you tell us how far that is from Corning?
The Court: I don’t know, but TI think we should
hear it from Mr. McKibbin.
es ROPE POT PY
29
Seth J. McK ibbin—Cross.
The Witness: I would estimate it’s approximate-
ly fifty miles east of Corning.
By Mr. Wayman:
Q. Do they also have a plant in Binghamton? A. In
Endicott. They have plants in the Southern Tier of New
York State, in that general vicinity, but—
The Court: How far is Binghamton from Corn-
ing?
The Witness: Eighty-five miles.
The Court: And Endicott?
The Witness: Eighty miles.
[429] SETH J. McKIBBIN, having been previously
sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Cross Examination by Mr. LaRuffa:
[431] Q. Did you, in any way, study any of the publica-
tions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more specifi-
cally with respect to a bulletin that was issued in December
of 19647 A. I did.
Q. And that related to what years? A. My recollection,
that it was published in May of 1964, and the date of the
data therein was 1963.
Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 97, marked for
identification, and ask you whether or not this is one of the
publications that you reviewed? A. I believe this another
copy of the same study, yes.
Q. You did study this one? A. Yes.
mn —
30
Seth J. McKibbin—Cross.
[432] Q. Mr. McKibbin, I show you Government’s Ex-
hibit 97 in evidence and can you,—and | call specific atten-
tion to page 26 and ask you, do you recall [433] studying
those schedules dealing with night shift differentials? A.
Yes, 1 looked at them.
Q. Will you indicate to the Court where in that publi-
cation does it appear that any firm receives as much as the
amount that you indicated on your direct testimony? A. I
indicated several amounts in my direct testimony. I am
not sure which one you refer to.
Q. Were any of those amounts obtained from informa-
tion in this schedule? A. They were not. All of the
information that I cited was current information and as best
I can recall, this is 1963 information.
[435] Q. But in Corning, New York, the night shift dif-
ferential to Inspectors is only paid to Inspectors, is it not?
A. Currently.
Q. Is it paid to any other employees? A. Not cur-
rently.
Q. I mean now, Mr. McKibbin, not the night shift dif-
ferential but the differential in basic rate. Is that paid to
any other employees working that third shift? A. That is
the question IT understood and currently we have no other
employees that are similarly situated.
Q. Other than Inspectors? A. That is right.
The Court: Now, you are talking about at the
present time, Mr. McKibbin?
The Witness: Yes, vour Honor.
By Mr. LaRuffa:
Q. It was at all times, was it not, since time immemorial,
was it not? A. No, I think in our research for you and in
31
Seth J. McKibbin—Cross.
. your [436] presence in Corning I believe I pointed out that
there had been other job classifications that were similarly -
situated where there was a steady night shift differential
between—there was a differential between the steady night
shift and the day shift, day and afternoon shifts.
Q. In the basic rate? A. In the basic rate.
[438] By Mr. LaRuffa:
Q. Is this what you referred to in your language “a
supplemental night shift differential escalating night shift
differential?” A. I am not sure of the precise language
but yes, we tried to describe the fact as hest we could.
Q. Did you invent that language? A. No, sir.
Q. Who did? A. An associate of mine at Corning
Glass Works.
Q. Have you ever heard of that language or that phrase
ology in industry as such? A. No, sir.
[443] By Mr. LaRuffa:
Q. And also for your same question outside of New
York, outside of Corning, New York, is there any branch
plant where the same job classification or job, is paid at a
different basic rate when worked at a different shift? A.
There is, to my knowledge.
Q. Will you indicate what those are and where? A.
There are two that I am aware of, Central Falls, Rhode
Island and Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.
Q. And Central Falls, Rhode Island, is the one that is
also subject to litigation, is that correct? A. I believe so.
The Court: What job is that, Mr. McKibbin, do
you [444] know? .
32
Edward W. Noble—Direct.
The Witness: I believe the job classification in
Rhode Island is an inspector operative job title. I
think the one in Wellshoro may be inspector, Class
C, or inspector Class B and C. There may be others
that I don’t recall at the moment.
By Mr. LaRuffa:
Q. Mr. McKibbin, in Corning, New York, until June of
1966, you always had a male rate and a female rate, is that
correct? A. Yes.
Q. Because of that, isn’t it a fact that the female rate
up to 1966 was always lower than the male rate? A. I
believe that is correct.
Mr. Wayman: Objected to.
The Court: Overruled.
+. >
[447] Q. Isn’t it a fact that women could only transfer
to a night shift if a vacancy occurred after that seniority
date? A. After June 1, 1966, yes.
[449] EDWARD W. NOBLE (120 Circle Drive, Bath,
New York), being duly sworn as a witness in behalf of the
Defendant, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wayman:
Q. Mr. Noble, I believe you have already given the
deposition and I just have a couple of questions for you in
addition to the answers you have given therein. You are of
course familiar with the CGW Job Evaluation system? A.
Yes.
33
John D. Barker—Cross.
Q. Did you assist in developing that system? A. Yes.
Q. Does the CGW Job Evaluation system take into ae-
count in any manner any factor whether the work is done
at day or night? A. It does not.
Q. Are you also familiar with the so-called SJ & H
Plant A. Yes.
Q. Did that plan take into acconnt any factor as to
whether or not the work was done at day or night? A. Tt
did not.
[460] JOHN D. BARKER (295 West William Street,
Corning, New York), a witness called by and on behalf of
the Defendant, having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
[462] Cross Examination by Mrs. Cappello:
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Excuse me, Mr. Barker. The women who worked on
the night shift then were paid the same as the women who
worked on the day or night shift during World War II? A.
Do I understand right? Is this ona woman’s job or a man’s
job you are referring to?
Q. What is the woman’s job?
The Court: We are referring to World War IL.
The Witness: Right.
The Court: All right.
34
John D. Barker—Cross.
The Witness: The women’s job was the inspection
job, but then when you go on nights, the man, he was
doing the job and he got extra pay for it.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Yes, we understand. A. So when the women went
on nights, she got the same rate he did. If she came back
on days, she got the [463] women’s rate for the job.
Q. You said, some women on the night shift, continued
to receive the same rate as the women on the afternoon
shift? A. I did not say that.
Q. I do not understand your position. Some women
did not get the male rate at night? A. They did not get
the full rate, some of them, because they did not do the
same job as the man. They were physically unable to do
so.
Q. What rate did they get compared to the women on
the day shift? A. They got the women’s rate, plus what-
ever percentage of the man’s job she did at that time.
Q. They weren’t getting the differential, because it was
at night? A. No, she was not.
35
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WeEstTeRN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORIES
SET NO. 1
Defendant by SETH J. McKIBBIN, Manager of Sta-
tistics and Surveys, Corning Glass Works, answers plain-
tiff’s interrogatories as follows:
Interrogatory No. 1:
1. (a) Name, by plant, and in order of seniority, all Class
C, Class B, General TV, and TV Inspectors for
the period from June 11, 1964, to May 31, 1966.
(b) As to each Inspector named in answer to (a),
state:
(8) Shift differential set by union contract, if
any
Answer to Interrogatory No. 1:
(8) Shift differential set by union contracts dated
January 9, 1964 and December 17, 1965, appli-
eable to the period of June 11, 1964 through
May 31, 1966 were as follows:
36
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
“Shift Differential:
“Section 1. Workers employed on shifts start-
ing at 2:00 P. M., 3:00 P. M., and
4:00 P. M. will be paid $0.06 per
hour as a premium for such work.
“Section 2. Workers employed on non-rotat-
ing shifts starting at 10:00 P. M.,
11:00 P. M., and Midnight will be
paid $0.12 per hour as a premium
for such work.
“Section 3. Workers employed on rotating
shifts starting at 10:00 P. M.,
11:00 P. M., and Midnight will be
paid $0.08 per hour as a premium
for such work.”
In addition the parties, by a past practice en-
dorsed by union contract, paid a supplemental
escalating shift differential to inspectors who
worked a non-rotating night shift.
s * .
Interrogatory No. 8:
8. Since June 11, 1964, have the men and women Class
C, Class B, TV and General TV Inspectors performed
their jobs under similar working conditions?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 8:
8. No.
37
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Interrogatory No. 9:
9. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is “no,” explain
the difference.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 9:
9. In aceordance with past practice under current and
predecessor contracts, women were assigned to inspection
activities on the day and/or afternoon shifts. Some of
them worked steady days or steady afternoon shifts, while
others rotated between the day and afternoon shifts on a
bi-weekly eycle. To a large degree these assignments were
made according to the desires of individual employees.
The men, on the other hand. worked a steady night shift
and never worked either the day or afternoon shifts. This
practice began about 1930 when machine production was
substituted for hand production in the Forming department.
Two shifts of inspection ( day and afternoon shifts) could
not keep pace with the three shifts of forming production.
By New York State Law, women were prohibited from
working the night shift. Thus, men were diverted from
other activities in order to man this essential operation on
the night shift, and their wage rates were not cut.
It was not practicable to reduce the rates of the men
transferred to the steady night shift, for they could earn
higher rates on other jobs, and in addition could get sub-
stantially more hours of work, and thus earn substantially
more money. The work was not only less remunerative,
but enjoyed less prestige.
The men on the Steady night shift were able to and did
more physical work, such as lifting and carrying. They
38
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
also required less relief time than did the women on day
or afternoon shifts.
In addition, they were working the least desirable of
all working hours, and working them on a steady shift,
without rotating shifts.
At that time there was no general shift differential. It
did not come into existence in these plants until the advent
of the union about 1944.
The working conditions of the men were thus substan-
tially different than those of the women when this. peeaty
night shift differential was established.
Interrogatory No. 10: |
10. If defendant pays shift differentials—
(a) What are they?
(b) How long have they been in effect?
(c) Are they set by union contract?
(d) Do they apply to all departments in all plants of
Corning Glass Works? If not to all, list the de
partments and plants to which they do, or do not,
apply.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 10:
10. (a) Rotating and/or non-rotating evening shifts at 6¢
per hour; rotating night shifts at 8¢ per hour;
non-rotating night shifts at 12¢ per hour. Afore-
mentioned supplemental escalating differential
applicable only to non-rotating night shift inspec-
tors. The amount of this supplement varies:
(b)
39
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Class C Class B
Ist 30 days $ .04 $ .04
2-4 months 08 04
5-10 months 125 .045
11-16 months .165* .085*
17-22 months 166° 135°
23 or more months 165° 196°
*Includes merit increase increment(s).
The supplemental differential cited above existed
from 1930 on with the size varying from time to
time as a result of the agreed upon rates applicable
to the job classifications:
Inspector C Inspector B
Maz. Differential Maz. Differential
1945 $.14 $.14
1946—64 16 18
1965 165 19
1966 .165 195
1967 165 195
Since January 20, 1944, they have been established
by Union contract. The other differentials were
initiated as part of the first contract between the
parties dated January 20, 1944. Subsequent con-
tracts revised and improved these differentials.
The existing formulae have remained unchanged
since the December 8, 1958 contract.
40
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
Shift Differential Date Effective
$.03 Non-Rotating Afternoon Shift) January 20, 1944
.05 Non-Rotating Night Shift )
$.04 Afternoon Shift) Rotating or January 20, 194
.06 Night Shift ) Non-Rotating
$.04 Afternoon Shift)
.06 Night Shift ) Non-Rotating January 20, 1946
.02 Afternoon Shift)
.03 Night Shift ) Rotating
Night Shift, Non-Rotating
changed $.10 October 20, 1947
$.04 Evening Shift) Rotating changed November 3, 1%?
.06 Night Shift )
$.06 Afternoon Shift Rotating or
Non-Rotating
.08 Night Shift Rotating December 8, 198
12 Night Shift Non-Rotating
(c) Yes, as described above.
(d) All except the supplemental differentials, as
cited above, apply throughout the establishments
covered by this suit.
Interrogatory No. 11:
11. Since June 11, 1964, have there been departments
staffed exclusively by men or exclusively by women!
Answer to Interrogatory No. 11:
11. In the alleged establishment covered by this suit there
are some departments which since November 1, 1964 have
been staffed exclusively by men or women. However, we
41
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
should point out that this is not necessarily a static condi-
tion, but that it can change and has changed from time to
time as a result of movement of employees by promotion,
transfer or bumping by seniority.
Interrogatory No. 12:
12. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 11 is “ves,” answer
the following, with dates:
(a) Which departments and in which plants?
(b) Which departments operate a third shift?
(c) What shift differential, if any, has-been paid for
the third shift?
(d) Is the base hourly rate for employees on the non-
rotating third shift the same as for the first and
second shift employees of equivalent or comparable
seniority? .
Answer to Interrogatory No. 12:
(a) and (b) The data requested are set forth in
Exhibit D attached hereto and made part hereof.
(ec) Shift differentials have been paid in accordance
with the contract.
(d) Yes.
Interrogatory No. 13:
13. During World War II did defendant replace men
inspectors with women inspectors?
42
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 13:
13. Defendant did not replace men with women inspectors.
As manpower became tight women were assigned to night
inspection work, under a special state permit, but they did
not perform the same duties that men on nights had
performed.
Interrogatory No. 14:
14. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 13 is “yes,” answer
the following :
(a) Did the women receive the same base hourly rate
as the men with equivalent or comparable senior-
ity?
(b) Were the inspectors on the first, second and third
shifts at any time during this period composed
entirely of women?
_(e) If the answer to (b) is “yes,” did the women on
the third shift receive the same base hourly rate
as the women of equivalent or comparable seniority
on the first and second shifts?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 14: —
14. (a) No.
(b) No.
(ec) Not applicable.
Interrogatory No. 15:
15. On June 11, 1964, did defendant maintain a separate
seniority list for men and women inspectors?
43
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 15:
15. The Company did not maintain separate seniority lists
of male and female inspectors as such. The Company did
maintain separate seniority lists for men and women pursu-
ant to long established union-management understandings
and practices.
Interrogatory No. 16:
16. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 15 is “yes,” state
how long these separate lists were maintained.
«luswer to Interrogatory No. 16:
16.° From about 1944 until May 31, 1966.
Interrogatory No. 18:
18.
If the answer to Interrogatory No. 17 is “no,”
when
were the separate lists discontinued?
(a) If discontinued, were women inspectors of greater
seniority who applied for third shift work able im-
mediately to displace men inspectors on the third shift
of the same class, but of lesser seniority?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 18:
18. On May 31, 1966 the seniority lists were combined.
(a) Beginning with June 1, 1966, women inspectors
were able to use seniority to take jobs on the
steady third shift, and many did so, under union-
management agreed upon seniority rules and
44
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
practices when vacancies and reductions in force
occurred. The rules for application of seniority
were not changed.
Interrogatory No. 19:
19.
Does defendant have a job evaluation plan?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 19:
19.
Defendant has two different job evaluation plans.
Interrogatory No. 20:
20.
If the answer to Interrogatory No. 19 is “yes,” at
how many points are the following jobs evaluated.
(a) Class C Inspector on the first and second shift?
(b) Class C Inspector on the third shift?
(c) Class B Inspector on the first and second shift?
(d) Class B Inspector on the third shift?
(e) TV Inspector on the first and second shift?
(f) TV Inspector on the third shift?
(g) General TV Inspector on the first and second
shifts?
(h) General TV Inspector on the third shift?
Answer to Interrogatory No. 20:
20. Under either of the above two evaluation plans the
evaluated points do not reflect a difference for any given
job as it occurs on the various shifts.
45
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Evaluated Points
S,J &H Plan (1) CGW Plan (2)
(a) Inspector Class C
lst Shift 230 930
2nd Shift 230 930
(b) 3rd Shift 230 930
(c) Inspector Class B
lst Shift 345 975
2nd Shift 345 975
(d) 3rd Shift 345 975
(e) TV Inspector
Ist Shift 230 930
2nd Shift 230 930
(f) 3rd Shift 230 930
(g) General TV Inspector
1st Shift 345 980
2nd Shift 345 980
(h) 3rd Shift 345 980
(1) Obsolete plan but still in effect in Corning,
New York.
(2) A new plan developed by the company, in
effect in 24 branch plants, which has been
presented to Local wed of the American
Flint Glass Workers
separate occasions.
Interrogatory No. 21:
21. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 19 is “yes,”—
(a) How long has the job evaluation plan been in use?
(b) Was it adopted by collective bargaining agreement,
or unilaterally by defendant?
46
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
Answer to Inierrogatory No. 21:
21. The defendant has two job evaluation plans.
The earliest of these plans, which we designate as the
“S, J & H Plan” (Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison), was
installed department by department in Corning starting in
1946, each installation being subject to the collective bar-
gaining process. The plan is still not in effect in some
departments in Corning, nor is there any agreement or
proposal to extend it to these departments.
The “S, J & H Plan” has long heen recognized to have
deficiencies :
1. A significant number of jobs were never brought
under the plan.
no
A number of jobs were, subsequent to installation,
removed from the plan.
3. The descriptions were neglected and permitted to
get out of date except when the union felt a rate
increase could be brought about.
4. The system did not provide for measurement of
Physical Effort.
5. The degree definitions under each factor were am-
biguous.
6. The plan failed to respond with rate increases on
jobs which were significantly changed.
The second plan, which is designated as the CGW Plan,
was developed over a period of several years starting in
1957 as a-result of recognition within the company that the
S, J & H Plan was an unsatisfactory tool, and the growing
47
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
dissatisfaction of the union with the S, J & H Plan for some
of the reasons listed above. The new plan was first in-
stalled in 1960 in a branch plant. It has been placed in
operation in 24 of the company’s branch plants of which 21
are AFGWU organized. In the December, 1962 negotia-
tions, the company made its first official offer of the CGW
Plan to Local #1000 (Corning) of the AFGWU and was
rejected as it has been in five subsequent presentations.
Officially the S, J & H Plan is still in effect in Corning,
New York, because the Union has thus far refused to agree
to the modern CGW plan. However the company fully
endorses the universal use of the CGW Plan throughout
the company as the soundest and fairest way to maintain
equitable rate relationships on hourly paid jobs. It is
ready to install the CGW Plan in Corning, and it has com-
pleted new descriptions and evaluations under the plan.
s/ SETH J. McKIBBIN.
48
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WeEstTERN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. 1
EXHIBIT D
[ Responsive to Interrogatory No. 12]
Third
Dept. No. Dept. Men Women Shift
“A” Factory
0100 Cleaners 5 —O- No
0101 Hand Blown Prod. 114 a | No
0103 Automatie Prod. 75 —O- Yes
0104 Automatic Flat Prod. 52 —0- Yes
0106 Maintenance 25 OL Yes
0107 Mold Room 21 —O- No
0902 Plant Mfg. Eng. + —(L No
1502 Melting 17. —& Yes
1503 Lehrs 4 —Q- Yes
1602 Forebays & Forehearth 13 -O- Yes
1702 Mixing 18 —O- Yes
1704 Trades 100 —0- No
1705 Machine Shop 67 —Q- No
1801 Pack, Stores & Shipping 12 is Yes
“B” & “C” Factory
2001 Trades ; 17 —O- No
2002 Equip. Maintenance 11 —-O # Yes
2007 Mold Maintenance 5) —O- No
2009 Clean & Elev. Oper. 7 —- No
2205 Lehrs 6 —0- Yes
2302 Hand Blown 68 —O- Yes
2402 Hand Press 19 —O- Yes
2502 Automatics 18 Oe Yes
2801 Melting 53 —O- Yes
2901 Mixing 12 —-O- Yes
2906 Shipping 3 Oe No
49
6308 Feeder Maintenance 6
(404 Machine Shop 14
6707 Finishing Maintenance 6
6708 Finishing Maintenance 1
7404 Storeroom 5
9101 Shipping 23
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.
Third
Dept. No. Dept. Men Women Shift
PRESSWARE
1801 Melting 15 —- Yes
1802 Melting 17 —Q- Yes
1803 Melting 4 Or Yes
1807 Melting 6 Ab Yes
1808 Melting 5 he Yes
1809 Melting 6 e Yes
2405 P. W. West Forming 74 OU Yes
2704 P. W. Forming 52 A. Yes
2705 P. W. Forming 181 4 Yes
4303 Rectangular Color
Dev. & Finishing 10 +} Yes
6101 Trades & Plant 104 —O- Yes
6105 Services 1 O- No
6108 Services 2 4 Yes
6202 Mold Shop 31 —O- Yes
6303 Feeder Maintenance 17 O- Yes
—O-
—O-
ah
—-
+
Oe
50
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WesTERN District or New YorkK
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTER-
ROGATORIES, SET NO. 2, TO THE EXTENT NOT
SUBJECT TO OBJECTIONS NOW PENDING
Interrogatory I (d):
(d) Answer 1(b) (8) refers to a “supplemental escalating
shift differential to inspectors who worked a nonrotating
night shift.”
(1) How long has the term “supplemental escalating
shift differential” been in use by defendant?
(2) Is this term in the union contracts, and, if so,
identify the provision in the first contract in which it
was used, and in subsequent contracts.
(3) Is this term used in any documents of Corning
Glass Works, New York? If so, identify by name, date,
and custodian.
(4) Is this “supplemental escalating shift differen-
tial” in addition to, or included in, the “base hourly
rate of pay” given for the night shift inspectors in
answer 1(b)(6)?
51
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.
Answer to Interrogatory I(d):
(1) This is merely a descriptive term used in an-
swering Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set No. 1. It is not
otherwise used.
(2) No.
(3) No.
(4) Included.
Interrogatory IV (c):
(c) Since June 1, 1966, how many women inspectors
have gotten onto the third shift by bidding? By bumping?
Answer to Interrogatory IV (c):
124 different women:
122 by bidding 206 times
25 by interplant bumping 34 times
Note: A woman may bid to take the job initially, leave
it later and return to it still later via either another bid
or a bump. 4
Interrogatory IV(d):
(d) Since June 1, 1966, how many vacancies have
occurred on the night shift? ‘
Answer to Interrogatory IV(d J:
By stipulation, this refers only to inspectors. There
were approximately 296 such openings.
52
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.
Interrogatory IV(e):
(e) On June 1, 1966, how many men inspectors were
on the night shift and how many had been inspectors for a
shorter length of time than the most senior woman in-
spector? What was the average length of time the men
had heen employed as inspectors?
Answer to Interrogatory 1V(e):
By stipulation, this refers only to the number of men
inspectors on night inspection jobs on June 1, 1966. On
that date there were 101.
Interrogatory V:
Answer 5 states that from June 1, 1966, to April 14, 1967,
101 women for some part of the period used seniority to
take steady night shift jobs and 24 men took day or after-
noon shift jobs.
(a) As to the 24 men state: (1) their names; (2) the
date each went on the day or afternoon shift; (3) how long
each had been employed at defendant's plant: (4) how long
each had heen an inspector; (5) whether seniority was used
to get on the day or afternoon shift: (6) their rates or
pay prior to and after the transfer: (7) how much actual
reduction in pay each suffered: (8) how long each stayed
on the day or afternoon shift; (9) to what job and rate each
transferred from the day or afternoon shift if no longer
there. .
Answer to Interrogatory V(a):.
Tn addition, there is attached hereto as Exhibit I a docu-
ment of two pages giving the detailed date requested in
EL ee
53
Platntiff’s Exhibit 6.
answer to this interrogatory. In each instance cited the
employee used his seniority to take the job.
Interrogatory X:
(a) Answer 10 refers to a “supplemental escalating
differential applicable only to non-rotating night shift in-
spectors.” Is this the same differential referred to in
answer 1(b)(8)? Do the answers to Interrogatory I(d)
in Set No. 2 of plaintiff’s interrogatories apply to it?
(b) Answer 10 refers to rates established by union con-
tracts of January 20, 1944, and December 8, 1958, and
contracts in between. Quote or attach copies of these con-
tracts and specify which provision of the contracts estab-
lished the rates. If the/rates are set forth in schedules
separate from the contracts, quote or attach copies of the
schedules. Name the person who has custody of these
contracts and schedules and is best qualified to explain
them.
Answer to Interrogatory X:
(a) Yes, to both questions.
(b) Copies of the contracts have already been fur-
nished to Mr. LaRuffa. See our answer to Interrogatory
I(b).
s/ SETH J. McKIBBIN.
Exhibit 13.
Plaintiff’s
oes ‘UW soso, ABA aaee 82/2 aa = > =e.
(N) ’ rut ALU) 1L9p 12/2 877+ 877
z
AUIIGEFIC = 9S-7Z-BO SWPH “A'"M 696I¥
fog mewomy i¢fz 21/8 60 — LEZ WZ MOL 899-20 W9-6I-0 II/8 den UY ‘f L9v0r
kog doys psepues 9001 ££/9 ee ZZ TZ SCSSEZ «= O-YI-SO OM TI-HO 92/9 wuy U'd Live
JOM ANINN OOL 61/8 ang SZ CFZ BOL BHZZ-H0 B9-OF-£0 81/8 UY ‘d “WN elt
saueyd zzi = £¢/9 — ZZ WZ = HOL-«—- ZS YFII-HO 92/9 APU “AV OOfZE
(N) ‘dsuy ALU) 129% I2/£ SOU — 82 SLrZ 129 = L010 Zb-10°S0 91/2 UUURIS) “VY “D Scrre
sours 2zZ1 92/9 OO Z TZ EOL «= IZ“90._ 99-01-90 92/9 Bisqsiog “VD P20le
Cc-—- Ge we I€€Z BH6Z-SO _BO-SI-SO £2/8 uoWwey “D “A 067262
J2s0geT 816S $0/8 WO — L482 WZ BOL B92Z-10 E9BI-IT $0/8 Appa ‘N “A fheoz
souvrjy BsadaMg {171 W/9 FlZt IZ AH MON = =99°E1-90 99°EI-90 $29 smraed ‘Md 9¢1Z
J24J0M AWINN 9601 90/8 LEZ+ LEZ YO-keT = 89-10-20 SH L0-0 §—90/8 opezd ‘d ‘f 02202
‘YStOd BY soos AL 7/2 60/8 vl — LEZ ISZ ~SLZ BPGI-10 F9EO-10 0/8 ssuruun “YW PSO
a1qeiesuy) 0/8 OW — 42 WZ BIOS BHSI-I0 SHZO-OI 0/8 4900} “AD pOr8I
9 — 42 eZ YO BFEI-SO $9-90-20 12/8 \uaunuey “f “We SP6El
ed i) 12/8 oo £Z SEZ SOL BF6I-PO 99-90-HO LI/8 HounUue) “AV fvoel
sousegy JO aAsz] ze/9 6 — = BIZ SLEZ EMIT: = 1Z-90-99-bZ-bO 97/9 uonng “Vy “YX 9zel
42410 AWINN 9f0L 61/8 = | eX 4 eel 89-2Z-+0 8FbI-f0 81/8 weyod “A “D 99680
42410 AWINN OOOL 01/8 =Lezt LEZ YO-APT = 99-22-20 99-S0-10 01/8 moqy “1D sssso
J24IOM ANN OL O1/8 LEZt LEZ YO-kO] —-O-BZ-ZO_ 9902-0 01/8 sayeg “TY Z88e0
apeL qof ‘podsuy ‘“yiq$g weyg wey $ qof = ‘sedsuy a3e(] 30dsu] ee owen # daa
seq yO ‘dsuy wos] ayeq ws] «= aatAsag Aeq uO
[A ‘ON 4103830110}U] 0} oatsuodsey }
3 ‘ON LUS ‘SUIMOLVOOUUAINI SAALLNIV'Id
OL SHAMSNYV SuLNVONAAAC OL 1 LIhtxa
(‘Surputad ut poz}1wo 0/31) a88/))
MYOX MAN dO LOUIS] NUALSA
LANOO LOIMLSIG SALVLS GALINA
‘SI LIGIHXa S,AALLNIW 1d
s Exhibit 13.
Plaintiff’
SPA AUEL
4JayJOM AUIND
AL 40}3adsuy [013U07)
J UCL
"MEIC AGN, 40,8190
sO ABD
JayJOM ANID
saresedcy cameeat
42910 ANINN,
Jd4IOM AWN
J240geT YOUR)
Jays0M AUIND
JayJ0Q\ AWIND,
4ays0 AUIND,
(N) “dsuy AL “ues
42430 ANIND,
‘t9dQ Bunws0,; “wayyy
aAleIIIO J0},D0dsu]
4243044 ANIND
JaJ0M ANIND,
JayJOM, AWING
(N) ‘dsu; AL
JayIOM AVIVA
yo-Ae]
Surysius,] HUye
yo-Aey
10M AHINO
sO, ANID,
sMIOM AND
WAIN AND
UOP NPY INesIdO
"Y8HOd s20OWS AL
_“S8ul AL “wp
sost 10/2
90r =—s-:*10/Z
SI8e =: O#//9
Sost 20/2
vole 20/2
OI 90/8
901 86:10
6rst © S0/8
SCOT II/8
901 J0/Z
OOrl = L1/Z
901 =. 8/9
901 10/2
901 =: 10/Z
1Z9r —s «60/8
901 10/2
Isol =: S0/8
6rse =: S08
9£01 10/2
1) a CA
901 = dT /Z
129s EE /Z
90 VL
W/Z
Irse =: 40/8
£0/8
01 «=: 90/8
901 86 ba/Z
901 2/9
G8 S55 S88 YAK BBR FAK NA
N NAN NNN NNN AANA NAN NN
aL
82'Z
4 WA 9f0I
S7e'zZ 9f0I
Ayyiqesiq,
SZe'z 9f0I
022 frel
2r'Zz O8IZ
S8b'Z elit
2r'2 9f0I
or'z 1SZz
S8b'Z elit
SZr'z 1Z9¢
$972 LZel
S2e'z 9f0I
S7s'z Cltt
yo-Ae']
Sz7e'z 8Ze1
oz 9f0I
Or'z 9f0l
S8r'Z fill
S9E'Z 9f0I
Soe'z L“el
Sle'z 1Z9r
os 9f0I
Ww
N
w
ww ww
43 598 es
NN ANN AN
“
—_
-_
89-SI-10
15-90-11
$9 IE-Z1
99-21-50
£S-£1-60
$9-22-90
99-91-50
AYP *
IASG *
WYSUMUIE AA
%
y :
fo)
= ~%
SW piel Ade SHU Aid wigs Fai
US eda wid Geel AOU tavi CUB ed Fei Ges ove
56
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 27.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. 2.
Interrogatory III (e), Answer III(a) states that “[t]he
inspector jobs on the steady night shift are higher rated
jobs than the corresponding activities on the day and/or
evening shifts” due to “the less desirable hours of work,
inconvenience of working steady nights, ete.” Exactly how
and at what rate has defendant compensated steady night
shift employees, other than inspectors, for the less desirable
hours of work and inconvenience, ete.?
Answer to Interrogatory III (e):
By shift differentials negotiated with the Union as de-
scribed in the answer to Interrogatory No. 10 of Defend-
ant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set No. 1.
SETH J. McKIBBIN
Sern J. McKrssin
57
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 30.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
-. HOURLY GROUP NUMBER CONVERSION TABLE
IRREGULAR SCHEDULE REGULAR SCHEDULE
Present Group New Group Present Group New Group
Number Number Number Number
Male Female Male Female
a: 3.1 12,&3A 1
6.2A 3.2 4&5A 2
Pf > oi 4.1 — 3
7.2A 4.2 1 TA 4
7.3A 4.0 2 8A 5
8.1A 5.2 3 9A 6
4 10A 7
3.1 & Above Add 3 to present 5 & above Add 3 to present
Group Number. Group Number. .
AJA,Jr/wd -
6-10-64 ©
58
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 32.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
J
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
CONVERSION SCHEDULE
Cancels sheet dated November 19, 1962
Effective June 11, 1964
REGULAR SCHEDULE
Grp. # Trainee Mimmum
1
2 1.975
3 1.975
4 2.015
5 2.015
6 2.015
7 2.015 2.055
8 2.015 2.095
9 2.015 2.135
10 2.055 2.185
11 2.095 2.235
12 2.135 2.285
13 2.185 2.345
14 2.235 2.40
15 2.285 * 2.475
16 2.345 2.545
17 2.40 2.63
18 2.475 2.69
19 2.545 2.765
2.63 2.845
RERERSES
po
§
59
[i] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 33.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WesterN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing. )
DEPOSITION OF EDWARD W. NOBLE.
[November 6, 19681
Appearances :
Mrs. Isabelle R. Cappello, Deputy Counsel for Regional
Litigation, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C..
on behalf of Plaintiff.
Francis V. LaRuffa, Esq., Chief Trial Attorney, U. S.
Department of Labor, 341-9th Avenue, New York, N. Y
on behalf of Plaintiff.
"9
Scott F. Zimmermap, E8q., Reed, Smith, Shaw and Me-
Clay, 747 Union Trust Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
‘ on behalf of Defendant.
60
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
[3] PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
EDWARD W. NOBLE, was called as a witness by Coun-
sel for the plaintiff, and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mrs. Cappello.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Would you state your name and address, for the
record, please? A. Edward W. Noble, 120 Circle Drive,
Bath, New York.
Q. Are you employed by Corning Glass works? A.
Yes, I am. .
Q. How long have you been employed by them? A.
Twenty seven years.
Q. Would you state the positions that you have held
and the approximate periods of time that you held them?
A. Yes, sir. This is going to be kind of memory—
Q. Sure— A. Approximately two years as an hourly
employee in miscellaneous manufacturing activities in the
Pilot plant for manufacturing optical glass here in Corning.
The next several years involved in sales—service work,
sales correspondence and the like, and since about 1945
involved in various industrial engineering [4] until my
present employment as manager of job evaluation.
Q. Mr. Noble—
Mr. LaRuffa: Excuse me, what is your present
position?
The Witness: Manager of job evaluation.
61
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
By Mrs. Cappello:
[11] Q. Would you now describe the working conditions
of these inspectors? A. Well, again, when we talk work
conditions, I am not just sure what you mean by working
conditions ?
Q. What do you mean when you evaluate a job? A.
What we are considering in working conditions is the weight
that the people have to lift, for example in other words we
are considering the hazard, we would consider the possible
hazards of strain, sprains, cuts, bruises and those things
that would be considered basically an injury, and we are
also considering the surrounding conditions or degree of
unpleasantness that exists with these jobs. In other words,
does the job require exposure to heat, noise, fumes, dust
and things of this sort. Now, these jobs—the most part
are in what we would consider a fairly typical factory con-
dition. There is some heat, there is some noise and there
is some fumes, but we would consider it as pretty much an
average or a normal factory condition.
[12] Q. Do these jobs vary from shift to shift? A.
Varied as far as evaluation plan is concerned, or varied—
Q. Well, as you know, how these jobs are performed,
do they vary from shift to shift? A. Today I don’t think
there is very little difference from shift to shift.
By Mrs. Cappello: si
[22] Q. Do you know if men regard inspection work as
lacking in prestige? A. I have heard that stated, yes.
‘Q. Do youknow why? A. Yes. They consider it female
work.
62
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
Mr. Zimmerman: It is your understanding, an
way?
The Witness: That’s right.
By Mrs. Cappello:
[40] Q. Have you ever been asked to get out new j
descriptions for these jobs? A. Our inspection classifi
tions have remained fairly constant over the years, M
Cappello.
Q. So you believe your supervisors out in the p
feel they are accurate? A. Yes.
Q. Why are working conditions omitted from M
N—Exhibits Mand Nt A. M and N?
Q. Yest A. Well, I think you will find that under
SJ and H System, if the working conditions were co
dered typical factory conditions, no award was given.
Q. The working conditions on the others are graded
G; is that correct? A. I see that statement.
Q. Well, would that be true of Mand N? A. Yes.
far as I am concerned, apparently this was the technic
that some of the analysts used to just indicate—
[41] Mr. Zimmerman: Which exhibit are you look
at?
The Witness: On this particular one, this is i
this is exhibit—
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. All of them but M and N have working condit
graded as G; is that right? A. Yes, that is correct. 4
I couldn’t testify as to why it was put on there, except
that has no award, as such.
63
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
Q. Well, what do you consider working conditions un-
der the SJ and H plan? A. Working conditions are two-
fold. One is surrounding conditions, which are the un-
pleasantness, degree of unpleasantness, and it would be the
severity and frequency of exposure to such things dust,
heat, noise, fumes, wetness, things of that sort.
Q. Is the time of day work considered? A. No, it is
not, and we also have the hazard conditions as another con-
sideration under working conditions, and there again it is
the frequency and type possible injury or hazard, such as
cuts, burns, bruises, and things of this sort.
By Mrs. Cappello:
[48] Q. Now, I would like to ask you some questions
about the S, J and H Plan, Mr. Noble, were the jobs of
Class C, Class B, T. V. and General T. V. Inspectors evalu-
ated at different points on the different shifts under this
plant A. No—well, wait a minute they were—yes, Class
C had a different title than Class B, if that is what you
mean, the total points—
Q. No, Class C jobs on all three shifts, was it evaluated?
A. I am sorry, I misunderstood your question. It was the
same on all three shifts.
Q. And this applies to all of those jobs? A. Right.
[49] Q. Did you bring with you the analysis sheets on
these jobs, that is, number three?
Mrs. Cappello: Please mark as Exhibit E to Mr.
Noble’s deposition the summary sheet for “A” faec-
tory.
64
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
(Whereupon, the document was marked for iden-
tification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit E.)
sol
Mrs. Cappello: Would you please mark as Exhib-
it-F to Mr. Noble’s deposition the summary sheet for
“B” and “C” factory, department, pressware inspec-
tion, finishing, and packing.
(Whereupon, the document was marked for iden-
tification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit F.)
Mrs. Cappello: Would you please mark as Exhibit
G to Mr. Noble’s deposition the summary sheet un-
der the SJ and H plan in pressware.
(Whereupon, the document was marked for iden-
tification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit G.)
Mrs. Cappello: Would you please mark as Exhib
it H to Mr. Noble’s deposition the analysis sheets
under SJ and H plan for Class B—let’s just call them
analysis records. This consists of thirteen pages.
(Whereupon, the document was marked for iden-
tification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit H.)
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Using these exhibits, Mr. Noble, would you please
state what the working conditions are for the day, after-
noon, and night Class C, Class B, TV, and general TV
inspectors? A. From this material, Mrs. Cappello, it is
impossible to identify the working conditions, because it is
not specified [50] as—other than some of these things
right in here.
65
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
Now, we have to understand what these were, and I want
to clarify the record.
Q. Are you referring to the analysis— A. I am refer-
ring to the analysis record.
Q. Exhibit H? A. Right, these were preliminary work
sheets that were subsequently summarized, and included on
the descriptions that have been in previous exhibits, and
these were never typed up, for example, and these were—
when we did our original analysis work.
Q. These are the job descriptions that were Exhibits K
to V to the second set Interrogatories? A. Right. The
purpose of this was—the analyst went out into the shop
area, and looked at the work and accumulated this
information, which was subsequently transferred to a de-
scription. Now, many of these—and T haven’t gone through
all of these—would have indicated that many of the plants
had a number of different types of inspection. In other
words, an inspector might be involved only with the—with
a pressed ware item in this location, another he might be
involved with an automatic item. We have to recognize at
the time this system was in the process of being developed
or applied, we had many, many types of inspection, and it
wasn’t until we got into a formal job evaluation that we
tended to [51] characterize them in basically two levels,
B and C. We didn’t continue the same.
Q. These analysis records are dated 1944 and 19437 A.
I think most of them are dated 1944. Right. Here is one
1943.
Q. And, generally the working conditions were desig-
nated as what? A. As good.
UG
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W. Noble—Direct.
Q. And, what working conditions were considered under
the SJ and H plan? A. Well, as I indicated to you, these
would be a typical—what we considered a typical factory
condition to be given in category—there would be some
noise and some heat and some fumes, but not of a sufficient
level of magnitude to justify giving the point awards.
Q. Is time of day considered a working condition un-
der these? A. No, not under this.
Q. And, it is not considered a working condition under
_ the CGW plan, either? A. No, it is not.
Q. Looking at the plan itself, the SJ and H plan, Mr.
Noble, which is Exhibit D to your Interrogatory, and turn-
ing to page twelve—thirteen, does it show down at the bot-
tom how you arrive at the rate for a job? [52] A. It
shows this, and, to the best of my knowledge, this was
never used in applying the system. This was used in the
preliminary stages for developing some tentative schedules,
and some preliminary work. The first wages that were
paid under the system was in 1944, or 1946, I believe, at
which time we had the schedule that is part of the exhibit.
This approach for translating points into money, to the
best of my knowledge, was never used for any payment of
wages.
Mrs. Cappello: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Looking at page thirty, Mr. Noble, of the SJ and H
plan, does that provide for multiplying the rating factor of
the job by the base rate male and the base rate female? A.
As I previously testified, this was provided, and you will
67
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33.
Deposition of Edward W.. Noble—Direct.
notice by our—some of these sheets, we did have this on
here, and it was never filled in, and as I indicated to you,
this rating factor—this means of converting total points in-
to a list was used primarily for development purposes, and
to the best of my knowledge, was never used as a wage pay-
ment as such.
* . sd
By Mrs. Cappello:
[53] Q. Under the CGW plan, what are the working
conditions of inspectors considered to be? A. Basically
the same as I described.
Q. Same as under the SJ and H plan? A. Right, the
situation has not, basically, changed.
Q. And, time of day is not considered a working condi-
tion? A. It is not.
68
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 34.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
EVALUATION MANUAL
Hourly Jobs
SECTION I
Guide for Describing
and Evaluating
Copyright 1961
CORNING GLASS WORKS
Corning, New York
The basis for evaluating a job is the description and
analysis of the job. The primary purpose of these is to
obtain information enabling the evaluator to establish an
equitable rate of pay and to record the basis for that rate
of pay.
An on-the-seene survey should be made of each job to
secure information about each of the eleven factors, as
called for on the Job Analysis Data Sheet (Form Q-38).
A sample of this form will be found as the last sheet in this
introduction. This sheet should serve as both a check sheet
and a work sheet for recording specific job information
and for development of the job description, and finally,
for the job evaluation itself.
As mentioned earlier, this job evaluation system covers
eleven factors, each of which is described in detail on the
69
Plaintiff's Exhibit 24.
following pages of this manual. Each factor is evaluated
by comparing the job in question with the appropriate
bench mark jobs, except for one factor (Responsibility for
Direction of Others) in which case a calculation must be
made to determine the points. ee
The steps in the evaluation process are:
1. Thoroughly understand the job to be evaluated.
This requires that you have prepared a complete,
accurate Job Analysis Data Sheet and a well-
written and approved Job Description.
2. Analyze the job, considering one factor at a time
and follow the specific instructions for each factor.
Make a preliminary decision concerning the ap-
propriate degree for each factor through the aid
of the degree definitions.
GROUND RULES
2. To maintain equity of rate relationships between jobs,
each job will be reviewed once a year to determine if
a change has occurred which would change the evalu-
ated points. Any change occurring during the year
should be recognized by a re-evaluation.
FACTOR 10
SURROUNDINGS
Definition
This factor measures the degree to which the physical con-
ditions surrounding a job are disagreeable. Consideration
is given to:
‘
70
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 34.
1. The nature and degree of the unpleasant conditions.
2. The amount of time the employe is exposed to
these conditions during the work day.
Discussion
Although the company attempts to provide favorable work-
ing conditions for its employes, the nature of some jobs
makes them less desirable than others. This factor pro-
vides for awarding additional points in such cases. The
conditions specifically referred to are dust, fumes and
smoke, which make it necessary to wear uncomfortable
safety equipment, and heat, glare, wetness, noise, vibration,
grease, oil and exposure to all outside weather conditions.
Identify the conditions under which the job is performed
and compare with the bench mark jobs on the following
page to determine the points to be assigned. Do not con-
sider the effect of summer and winter or night and day
differences on the working conditions, but evaluate on a year
around average condition.
: FACTOR 11
HAZARDS
Definition
This factor is a measure of the hazards of the job to which
the employe is regularly exposed. Consideration is given
to:
1. The degree to which unguarded hazards exist.
2. The frequency of exposure to the hazards.
3. The type and degree of possible injury.
71
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 34.
Discussion
The company attempts to provide safe conditions on every
job. Moving machinery such as gears, belts, and recipro-
cating parts have been covered with shields wherever prac-
i
devices have been provided; and protective clothing and
job.
It must be assumed that the employe is a normal individual
adapted to the conditions of the specific job, and that he is
exercising reasonable care and observing all safety regu-
In evaluating hazards, consider only those that remain
unguarded ; that is, those which the employe must use his
ingenuity and care to avoid. A shielded gear train is no
longer a real danger, but hot power lines constitute a hazard
to the electrician.
To determine the award for this factor consider the fre-
quency of exposure to the hazardous condition, and the type
and degree of possible injury (such as cuts, burns, strains,
sprains, fracture) and compare with the bench marks on
the following page.
72
a. 4 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 36.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Wesrern Districr or New York
; (Case title omitted in printing.)
‘HOURLY JOB EVALUATION
‘R-25 Job No.: 80-1353
Location: “A” Factory Typed: 3-10-64
Job Title: Inspector Class C Effective :
Analyst: R. L. Lewis
DESCRIPTION:
Inspects a limited variety of ware for specified glass qual-
ity, shop, finishing, and dimensional defects, using a limited
variety of gauges and working according to standard pro-
cedures. This work includes such duties as:
Inspects ware visually for such defects as stones, seeds,
chill wrinkles, shear marks, blisters, and for improper
grinding, sandblasting, beading, lipping, ete. Uses
gages such as go-no go, contour, snap, dial indicator,
and wall reading. Maintains a record of quantity
of ware rejected, and records reasons for failure of
ware to pass inspection.
Wipes, wraps, and packs ware as instructed in accor-
dance with standard procedures, using wiping cloths,
wrapping, paper, and packing materials. Discards
defective ware into specified cullet chute; bin, conveyor,
or can. ;
Approved by Date
73
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 36.
ANALYSIS OF JOB
This Job
1. Manual Effort
_Handle under 15# such as: inspect-
ing light ware — 50 32 6
2. Visual Effort
Over 25% of shift: performing vis-
ual and dimensional inspections of
glass products, continuously, for reg-
ular types of defects. 1 © @ :%
3. Manual Accuracy
No appreciable difficulty to meet
tolerances such as: the use of gages, —
dials, rings and plugs for inspection
of various dimensions and visual de- .
fects. . &
4. Manual Complexity
. Gange and visually inspect ware
for defects. 50 6
5. Job Knowledge
Knowledge of ware defects, simple
gauges and inspection techniques for
a limited variety of ware, may obtain
information for drawings.
105
74
Plaintiff's Exhibit 36.
6. Responsibility for Problem Solving
Problem such as when defects in
product exceed number and degree
specified for item being inspected. — 2 &-eS
7. Responsibility for Materials and/or Product
Ordinary care to prevent loss such
as: 100 pieces of acceptable hand shop
items/shift, rejected due to improper
comparison of defects to limit sam-
ples or improper use of no-go gages. 1.80 St 12
Special Loss Allowance
8. Responsibility for Equipment and/or Tools
Ordinary care to prevent loss from:
damage to such equipment as gages
due to improper use. 2 50 72 16
Special Investment Allowance
9. Responsibility for Direction of others
None 0
10. Surroundings
Normal factory conditions. on ae oe
11. Hazards ai
Frequent exposure to minor inju-
ries such as: cuts from broken ware *
and burns from hot ware. — .- 6 4
Total Points 930
75
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 36.
HOURLY JOB ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Q-38 (rev.)
Location: “A” Factory
Analyst: R. L. Lewis
Date: 3-10-64
Job Title: Inspector, Class C
Job Code No.: 80-1353 7
Analyze the job—NOT the employee
JOB CONDITIONS
Surroundings: ox MAE ee
List elements regularly encountered: Intensity :
Frequency : Normal factory conditions.
Hazards:
List hazards regularly encountered: Cuts, burns.
- Severity of Injury: Minor.
Frequency:. Frequent.
16
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 37.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
HOURLY JOB EVALUATION
R-25 ' Job No.: 8C
‘Location: “A” Factory Finishing —
Department Typed: 3/
Job Title: Inspector-Class B Effective :
Analyst: E. A. Welch Rev. 8/27/
Rev. 11/9
DESCRIPTION
Inspects a variety of shapes of ware made both au
tically and by hand for all types of glass quality,
finishing and dimensional defects, referring to glass
ings, written specifications, ware samples and vert
structions. Accepts or rejects ware. Checks dimen
conformance using go-no-go, gages, dial gages, ¢
gages, plug gages, ring gages, etc.
Inserts inspection tickets, in cartons, glues labels in
operates ware counters, and sleeves ware as necessar
Washes, wipes, wraps and packs ware, in conjunctic
inspection as directed.
Seals cartons with tape, glue or staples as directed.
Records inspection results on proper report forms |
forms foreman of defects found and any unusual t:
the quality level.
Pe, Saree EN eT ee
17
Plaintiff's Exhibit 37.
Loads and unloads, in conjunction with inspection, finishing
equipment such as diamond saw, drill press and automatic
labeler.
Inspects ware such as: X-ray bulbs, refractors, pipe flanges,
chemex ware, flares, stoppers, baking ware, etc.
Approved by Date Approved by Date
too ee RRS O ORO OE CEs. CEC RWES- CEE Eos Sh we SS dD a
tt ee ROE OO ee ene: ee See eee eee ae (Gleiece &
Tew COR SPARES CRSA FEO ROSS Oe 6 6 Oh ee!) oe eek
ANALYSIS OF JOB
Bench Mark Jobs
Same More Points
Than As Than
This Job.
1. Manual Effort
Picks up, manipulates and packs
ware weighing up to 15# continu- .
ously. Race ae one 31 60
2. Visual Effort
Close visual inspection of ware
continuously. ~~ =. 6S OCS
3. Manual Accuracy
Must use gages accurately for
checking dimensional conformances. 60 57 65 135
4. Manual Complexity
Manipulate ware and gage to
correctly gage the ware such as:
Reading wall thickness on optical
gage. 15 57 39 105
78
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 37.
5. Job Knowledge
Thorough knowledge of all types of
defects and their relationships to
specifications. ~ om UD Oe
6. Responsibility for problem solving
Makes decisions as to accept or
reject ware 19 57 28 170
7. Responsibility for materials and/or product
Considerable care to avoid throw-
ing away good ware or packing bad
ware, such as: ¥4 to 1 hour of baking
ware. (500—1000 pes.) 4 57 48 135
Special Loss Allowance
8. Responsibility for equipment and/or tools
Ordinary care to avoid damaging
gages. 23 ST 40 105
Special Investment Allowance
9. Responsibility for direction of others
None 0
10. Swrrouwndings
Normal Factory conditions. oo FF tb ®
11. Hazards
Frequent exposure to minor cuts
and burns. 59 57 31 4
Total Points 975
79
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 37.
HOURLY JOB ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Q-38 (rev.)
Location: A factory finishing department
Analyst: E. A. Welch
Date: 12-13-63
Job title: Inspector-Class B
Job Code No. : 80-4658
Analyze the job—NOT the employee
Se
JOB CONDITIONS
Surroundings : oe:
List elements regularly encountered: Intensity :
Frequency; Normal factory conditions.
Hazards:
List hazards regularly encountered: Burns Cuts
Severity of Injury: Minor
Frequency: Frequent
80
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 38.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
HOURLY JOB EVALUATION
R-23-x Job No.: 12-1354
Location: B & C Factory—Finishing Typed: 3/12/64
& Inspection
Job Title: Inspector Class C Effective :
Analyst: R.S. Callaway
DESCRIPTION:
Inspects a limited variety of ware such as, standard types
of bulbs and cylinders for specified glass quality, shop,
finishing, and dimensional defects, using a limited variety
of gages and working according to standard procedures.
This work includes duties such as:
Inspects ware visually for such defects as stones,
seeds, chill wrinkles, shear marks, blisters, and for
improper grinding, sandblasting, beading, lipping ete.
Use gages such as go-no-go, contour, snap, dial indi-
cator; and wall reading.
Maintains a record of quantity of ware rejected, and
records readings for failure of ware to pass inspection.
Wipes, wraps, and packs ware as instructed in accord-
ance with standard procedures using wiping cloths,
wrapping, paper, and packing materials. Discards
defective ware into specified cullet chute, bin, con-
veyor, or can.
81
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38.
Approved by Date Approved by
sssngsi nde MaA oil ahi, ude te eo ee ee
PU AE COR eR Oe Oe eK
ee Ae Se eS Oe eine be
ANALYSIS OF JOB
1. Manual Effort
Handles under 15# such as: in-
specting light ware.
2. Visual Effort
Over 25% of shift: performing
visual and dimensional inspections of
glass products, continuously for regu-
lar types of defects, :
3. Manual Accuracy
No appreciable difficulty to meet
tolerances such as: the use of gages,
dials, rings, and plugs for inspection
of various dimensions and visual de-
fects.
4. Manual Complexity
Gage and visually inspect ware for
defects.
5. Job Knowledge
Knowledge of ware defects, simple
8ages, and inspection techniques for
a limited variety of ware, may obtain
te Pts. i ee eS ee Be ee
Bench Mark Jobs
Same More
Than As
This Job
50 8648
30 8622
30 57
50 8620
ey
information from drawings.
75
105
115
82
Plaintiff's Exhibit 38.
6. Responsibility for Problem Solving
Problems such as when defects in
product exceed number and degree
specified for item being inspected. — © 57 1S
7. Responsibility for Materials and/or Product
Ordinary care to prevent loss such
as: 100 pieces of acceptable hand
shop items/shift, rejected due to
improper comparison of defects to
limit samples or improper use of
go no-go gages. 1.50 57 120
Special Loss Allowance
8. Responsibility for Equipment and/or Tools
Ordinary care to prevent loss from:
damage to such equipment as gages
due to improper use. 2 D ST 16
Special Investment Allowance
9. Responsibility for Direction Of Others
None. 0
10. Surroundings
Normal factory conditions. — -®) LU ®
11. Hazards
Frequent exposure to minor in-
juries such as: cuts from broken
ware and burns from hot ware. — 9% C6.
Total Points 930
83
Plaintiff's Exhibit 38.
HOURLY JOB ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
G-38 (rev.)
Location: B & C Factory—Fin. & Inap.
Analyst: R.S. Callaway
Date: 3/12/64
Job Title: Inspector Class C
Job Code No: 81-1353
Analyze the job—NOT the employee
JOB CONDITIONS
Surroundings: : ‘
List elements regularly encountered: Intensity:
Frequency: Normal factory conditions.
Hazards:
List hazards regularly encountered: cuts, burns
Severity of injury: minor
Frequency: frequent
84
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 39.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
HOURLY JOB EVALUATION
R-25 Job No.: 4650
Location B &C Factory Typed: 10/15/63
Inspection & Finishing _ tee
Job Title: Inspector Class B Effective :
Analyst: N. M. Wisner
Inspects at various locations such as the discharge end of
a lehr, conveyor, or on a table, a wide variety of items in
clear and colored glasses (bulbs, cylinders, lens, fresnels,
filters, tubing, dental reflectors, radomes, range top ware,
and experimental ware) for.glass. and shop faults using,
ware samples, drawings, product specifications, microscope,
pocket comparitor, templates, according to an established
proceduré..-Paek-the ware following packing specifications.
This work includes duties such as:
Inspects & gauges all hand and automatic made ware
of all colors for glass, shop and finishing faults such as
(stones, blisters, cord, wall, streak, slack blown, length
eutoff, firepolish) using product specifications, ware
samples, drawings, gauges, templates.
Measure ware strain on polarscope and color trans-
mission on photometer to determine in specification
ware. Wipes, wraps, and packs ware using packing
specification.
Records select and faults on inspection form.
Mi calcact ren kate
85
=
Plaintiff's Exhibit 39.
Approved by Date Approved by Date
Ta et et oe eee ae. ie es eee ew ake 6 © ole
ANALYSIS OF JOB
1. Manual Effort
Handles under 15# over 50% “
the shift 3S 87 51 @
2. Visual Effort
Over 50% of shift: continuously
inspects all colored and/or clear
glasses for shop faults and glass
faults such as stones, seeds, blisters,
cord, color, ete. =~ 2 2S US
3. M anual Accuracy
Use. of gage to measure a variety
of ware visually and dimensionally
to .001”.
4. Manual Complexity
Inspects ware for all defects. Mea-
sures wall by manipulating ware in
many different types of dial indicator
gauges. Packs ware. 53. 57 59 105
5. Job Knowledge
Knowledge of specifications, gau-
zes, inspection, and packing tech-
niques, stress reading, color trans-
mission, correct inspection lights. 50 57 20 120
s
57 8620 «135
86
Plaintiff's Exhibit 39.
Bench Mark Jobs
Less Same More Poin
Than As Than
This Job
6. Responsibility for Problem Solving
Problem such as correct interpre-
tation of product drawings and speci-
fications on a wide variety of colored
and clear glasses to reject or accept
the ware based on defect found. 50. 57 24 170
7. Responsibility for Materials and/or Product
Constant care to prevent loss of
up to 4 hours of production due to
rejecting acceptable ware. 50- 57 27 135
Special Loss Allowance
8. Responsibility for Equipment and/or Tools
Ordinary care to prevent loss from
damage to such equipment as gauges
through improper use. 52 57 31 106
Special Investment Allowance ;
9. Responsibility for Direction of Others
None. ; 0
10. Surroundings
Normal factory conditions. 0 57 B B®
11. Hazards |
Occasional exposure to injuries.
such as cuts from broken glass and
burns from hotware. 50 St 23 @
, Total Points 975
87
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 39.
HOURLY JOB ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Q-38 (rev.)
Location: B & C Factory
Analyst: N.M. Wisner
Date: 10/15/63
Job Title: Inspector Class B
Job Code No. : 81-4685
Analyze the jobh—NOT the employee
JOB CONDITIONS
Surroundings:
List elements regularly encountered: Hot, noisy, cold
Intensity: normal.
Frequency: continuous
Hazards:
List hazards regularly encountered: breaking ware, hot
ware, acid. es
Severity of Injury: cuts, burns, acid burns
Frequency: occasionally.
88
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 40.
UNITED. STATES DISTRICT. COURT
WEsTERN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
HOURLY JOB DESCRIPTION .
R-25-p Rev. 1/65 Job No.: 95-4672
Location: Pressware-several Typed: 12/14/63
Departments
Job Title: General Television Inspector Effective:
Analyst: R. M. Searles Revs. 11/6/65
DESCRIPTION:
Inspects Black and White and Color Television funnels,
panels, necks and bulbs for all types of glass quality, shop,
finishing and dimensional defects, comparing with toler-
ances established by verbal and written specifications,
drawings, sketches and limit samples. This work includes
such duties as:
Inspects ware visually for all defects such as stones,
seeds, blister, chill, shear mark, cord, spew, checks (vari-
ous), oil marks, and general face and surface quality and
for all finishing defects such as cold seal, checked button
seal, checked pin seal, defects of polish face quality, “velve-
tone” surface, edge grind and acid fortify ete.
Inspects ware for dimensional conformance to specifi-
cations using such equipment as electricator gauge, Moore
Air Gage, flat pate, feeler gauge, go-no-go plug gauge.
height contour gauge, calipers, electronic gauges ete.
Wipes and packs ware using cloths, paper and packing
cartons and maintains records of pieces rejected by types
and reasons for rejections.
Ph RAISE NOR
eae ae oa
-—
89
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40.
Instruct lesser skilled inspector
Maintains good housekeeping conditions in working area.
Observes safety regulations and practices.
The above statement reflects the general details considered
necessary to describe the principle functions of the job
identified and shall not be construed as a detailed descrip-
tion of all of the work requirements that may be inherent
in the job.
Approved By Date Approved By
ee ee ee 2 ed
ececesneeneeneneeeeee eee eee eee —=—=—hetrhl OCC OO OC OO ee Oe Oe
eececececeneceeeeeeeee cee eee eee 358 ee eee ereeereeeere
HOURLY JOB EVALUATION
R-25-E
1. Manual Effort
Pickup, inspect, gauge various
television parts, dispose of lehr rack
ete. over 50% of shift.
2. Visual Effort
Up to 25% of shift inspecting .TV
parts closely, reading gauges and
visually checking defects. Newsprint
level over 25%. Minute detail 5%-
10% hold blister to .25 + .005” using
plastie gauges showing inspection
sizes and comparator gauge where
necessary.
90
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40.
Bench Mark Jobs
Less Same More Points
As Than
This Job
3. Manual Accuracy
Visual and mechanical measure-
ment to .025’ + .005” for blisters
' ete. Keep polish quality within ac-
cepted limits. Pick up and set down
approx. 20 lbs. of TV panel and
gauge without bruising etc. Reaction
time-normal. 50
4. Manual Complexity
Uses variety of calipers and opti-
cal gauges to obtain dimensional
readings and visual comparisions of
defects with respect to limit samples
and specifications. 21 53 48 105
5. Job Knowledge
Knowledge of understanding of
specifications and uses of gauges for
all TV parts and bulbs. Knowledge
of various types of defects and ability
to determine whether in or out of
specifications. Addition and subtrac-
tion and multiplication. 40 48 115
135
—
3
6. Responsibility for Problem Solving
Correct interpretation of specifica-
tions. How to handle “border line”
eases whether in or out of specifica-
tions. 50 51 (155
91
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40.
Bench Mark J
Same More Points
As
This Job
7. Responsibility for Materials
and/or Product
Improper interpretation or appli-
eations or specifications can result ~
in loss of truck load of ware (1600
panels) being rejected at customers.
This means return reinspection ete. 50 53 46 135
Special Loss Allowance
8. Responsibility for Equipment
and/or Tools
Careless handling of ware on
Moore Air Gauge could knock it out
of adjustment very easily. Gauge is
checked against master once each
hour. The ware loss could he %
hours production. 15 53 17 105
Special Investment Allowance
9. Responsibility for Direction of
Others
None 0
10. Surroundings
Normal factory conditions 2. 53 6 30
11. Hazards
Possibility of minor (sometimes
major) cuts occasionally. 50 86553 6 40
Total Points
—_—————_
92
Plaintiff's Exhibit 40.
HOURLY JOB ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Q-38(rev.) a
Location: ‘Pressware. _
Analyst: R. M. Searless.
Date: 2/28/64. _
Job Title: General Television Inspector.
Job Code No.: 92-4672.
Analyze the jobh—NOT the employee
JOB CONDITIONS
Surroundings: .
List elements regularly encountered: Heat.
Intensity: Normal.
Frequency: Continuous.
Hazards:
List hazards regularly encountered: Broken glass.
Severity of Injury: Cuts-minor to severe.
‘Frequency: Occasionally.
93
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 42.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WEeEstTERN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
A MANUAL
FOR
OCCUPATION EVALUATION
Prepared by
B. C. GOULD
Cuicaco Division
STEVENSON, JORDAN & HARRISON, INC.
MANAGEMENT ENGINEERS
19 WEST 44TH STREET, NEW YORK
779 Washington Street, Buffalo, New York
205 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois
Hanna Building, Cleveland, Ohio
English Subsidiary
STevenson, Jorpon & Harrison, Lop.
324 Australia House, Strand, London, W. C. 2
Canadian Affiliate
Stevenson & Ketioce, Lop.
970 Sun Life Building, Montreal
= se . ate
y
94
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42.
GENERAL
TO ESTABLISH wage rates with proper differentials
between occupations, it is first necessary to analyze the
requirements of the work and the duties involved in each
occupation, regardless of the qualifications of the per-
sonnel that may perform the work. When these require-
ments are known, a sound method of evaluation will deter-
mine their relative value and thus a basis for establishing
equitable hourly wage rates.
The plan set forth in this manual is based on an analysis
of seven prime elements of industrial occupations: Gen-
eral Schooling, Training Period, Manual Skill, Versatility.
Job Knowledge, Responsibility, and Working Conditions.
It should be stated here that factors such as productive
ability, ingenuity and effort have been considered as per-
sonal attributes, and should be reflected in a measurement
of individual performance to be rewarded, together with
seniority. in accordance with each company’s specific policy
on such subjects.
The principle of evaluation used in this plan is unique
in that all differentials are made from one common base—
the prevailing unskilled labor rate of the vicinity and/or
industry—thus providing a sound basis of establishing
equitable occupation rates. and also a method of main-
taining that equality as the entire structure of rates moves
up or down with changing conditions in any vicinity.
Perhaps the most important factor to be considered in
establishing wage rate differentials is the judgment re-
quired to analyze the various elements of the occupations.
The procedure as described, together with the forms illus-
trated in this manual, provides a means of reducing the
95
Platntiff’s Exhibit 42.
possible error of personal judgment to a minimum, and
also furnishes a permanent record of considerable value
when a general change in wage rates becomes advisable.
When the common base has been established, and the
problem of seniority, rate of output, etc., isolated as sepa-
rate problems, all individuals who are familiar with its op-
eration will arrive at the same value by the use of this
plan.
Working Conditions
This element refers to the surrounding conditions and
physical hazards to which employees are unavoidably sub-
jected while performing the duties of an occupation.
Due to the fact that degree or extent of working condi-
tions will vary greatly in different industries and plants
within the same industry, it is not possible to predetermine
a fixed value for each condition. However, working con-
ditions have been classified into three groups, together
with a description of various degrees in each with assigned
values, to serve as a basis for evaluating local conditions
at any plant.
The three classes of working conditions are: Surround-
ing Conditions, Minor Hazards, and Major Hazards. When
rating an occupation on this element it is necessary to
analyze the conditions and the extent to which they exist.
and determine the value for each class accordingly. Should
conditions exist which are not specified or should they
exist to a degree not described, the values may be in-
creased up to 100 in any one group.
96
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42.
PROCEDURE
IT IS important to emphasize the fact that it is impos-
sible to evaluate occupations properly until the various
requisites have been accurately analyzed. Therefore, it is
necessary that this analysis be prepared by persons who
are thoroughly familiar with the operations and work of
each occupation. A group consisting of the department
foreman, personnel director, general foreman, and the
“standards and methods” representative, has been found
to be most logical and effective. Employees themselves
may participate in the evaluation of their own occupa-
tions, if such a group is not too large.
DETAIL
1. The work sheet headed “Summary Sheet” provides a
means of recording the requisite values determined
for each occupation. The first step of the procedure,
therefore, is to enter at the top of this sheet the
identification of department, persons making analy-
sis, and date, together with the unskilled labor rate
of the vicinity. All of the occupations in the depart-
ment to be evaluated should be identified and listed
under the column headed “Occupation Description.” .
9. The next step is the preparation of the “Analysis
Record” for each occupation. This form is designed
to provide a record of the requirements of each occu-
pation to obtain accurate analysis and evaluation of
each element. The preparation of this record includes
a summary of the duties involved and the degree or
extent of each element necessary for satisfactory com-
pletion of the work
97
Plaintiff's Exhibit 42.
3. The next step is the grading of occupations in accord-
ance with the requirement of each prime element.
The values and descriptions for various degrees of
each element are listed on the following pages. With
the specifications of each occupation on the Analysis
Record as reference, the selection of the proper value
of each element is facilitated, especially when the
gradings for a number of occupations are completed
on each element separately. When the values for
each occupation’ have been selected they are entered
on the “Summary Sheet” and totaled.
4. The neai step is converting the total values selected
to a rating factor. This is done by reference to the
“Conversion Chart” which consists of two scales
and a curve. The horizontal arithemetic scale rep-
resents the total index value and the vertical log-
arithmic scale represents the rating factors. To
determine the rating factor it is only necessary to
locate the index total figure on the horizontal scale,
its point of intersection with the curve, and to read
the rating factor at the opposite point on the vertical
scale.
5. The rating factor for each occupation is entered on
the “Summary Sheet” and reflects the differentials
between occupations.- The basic wage rate is deter-
mined by the rating factor as a percentage increase
over the unskilled labor rate of the vicinity.
6. Example of Calculation
Total Index Figure .............. 600
Rating Factor ..................-- 1.67
Common Labor Rate (Male) ...... $0.50 per hr.
1.67 X .50 = .8357 Occupation Wage
Rate
a
98
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42.
Occupation Evaluation
WORKING CONDITIONS |
Value Degree Description
10
15
_ Surrounding Conditions
(Wet, Heat, Cold, Dust, Grease, Noise, Etc.)
Normal For occupations on which the work-
ing conditions are normal, with the
above typical disagreeable features
existing only non-continuously or to
a slight degree.
Poor For occupations on which the work-
ing conditions-are poor, with one or
two of the above typical disagree-
able features existing to a marked
degree or several of them prevalent
continuously.
Very Poor For occupations on which the work-
ing conditions are poor, with sev-
eral of the above typical disagree-
able features existing continuously
to a marked degree.
Minor Hazards
(Bruises, Cuts, Heavy Lifting, Fumes, Slippery
Floors, Etc.)
Normal For occupations on which one or
two of the above typical minor haz-
ards are frequently encountered in
only a slight degree.
a
99
Plaintiff's Exhibit 42.
30 Considerable For occupations on which several of
the above typical minor hazards are
frequently encountered in only a
slight degree or one of them con-
stantly encountered to a marked
degree
60 Very High For occupations on which several of
the above typical minor hazards are
constantly present or frequently en-
countered to a marked degree.
Major Hazards
(Machine, Chemicals, Gases, Body Injuries, Etc.)
25° Normal For occupations on which one of the
‘ above typical major hazards is con-
stantly present, with, however, the
protection of normal safety meas-
ures.
50 Considerable For occupations on which several of
the above typical hazards.exist con-
tinuously to a marked degree, with.
however, the protection of normal
safety measures.
100 Very High For occupations on which several of
the above typical hazards exist con-
tinuotsly to a marked degree, and
on which the safety measures avail-
able cannot provide adequate pro-
: tection.
100
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42.
OCCUPATION EVALUATION
SUMMARY SHEET
Dept Same Labor Rate 4™unt — pate of evaluation
Analysis by Namie of indicidwals preparing the evaluation
ae WY
fp eS
Oe sf ee t
wey Foe 18
© oie. :
Re e ol
= J
ten a to 5 Ta sa
Calculated from rating factor and labor rate
PEPE EMEP Erie Perry]
Total values for each occupation.
Le ee ee es es es ee ee ee
101
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 47.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing. )
Katherine Kessler—Clock No. 2833
346 Oak Street Service No.-5-8-28
Corning, N. Y. Retired—June 1, 1947
L
I
N Date Rate
E
A
°
oie 9) “VHA Oe OD
9- 8-24 20¢ Employed as Helper by A. G. Wileox
10-13-24 22¢
11-17-24 2¢
1-19-25 24¢ Finishing
3-12-25 24¢ Inspection
10-10-25 24¢ Quit to do housework
6-10-29 20¢ Reemployed as Helper by A. G.
Wilcox
8- 4-30 28¢ Laid-off
10- 6-30 28¢ Re-employed as Helper by A. G.
Wilcox
9- 6-32 25¢ General Decrease
7-31-33 30¢ ” Increase
4-16-34 33¢ sa =
3-28-37 40¢ “ “
3 241 42¢ Pyrex Inspection
3- 9-41 47¢ General Increase
9-28-41 52¢ Rate change
10-19-41 d4¢ Inspector-Pyrex Finishing
1-11-43 Last date worked—Sick Leave
—T & P—1947
102
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 48.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New YorkK
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Helen M. Callanan—121 W. Fifth St.—Corning, N. Y.
Employed by CG@W—11-15-15 to retirement 17-36
Date Rate
11-15-15 13¢ Employed as Inspector
L
I
N
E
No.
1
2 5- 3-16 14%¢
3 912-17 16¢
4 3-27-18 18¢
5 T- 3-18 20¢ Gen’! Increase
6 10- 9-18 23¢ as 7
7 10- 6-19 25¢
8 3-29-26 26¢
9 Lv. of Absence to visit sister—7-2-27
10 = 9- 6-27 26¢ Reemployed by S. F. Cany as
Helper
11 10-18-27 Last date worked—Illness
12
13 425-28 26¢ Re-employed following illness
14 12 9-29 28¢
15 9- 6-32 27¢ Gen’l decrease
16. 7-31-33 31¢ Gen’l Increase
17 416-34 34¢ ” .
18
19 2-13-36 Last date employed—Granted a pen-
sion “ $3.00—week—effective 2-17-36
Death—4-10-44
103
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 49.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Hattie Strong +880
?
Reemployed 11/15/20 as Inspector @ 24¢ + a
insp. piece rate? per HLS.
‘i 11/21/21 7 22¢
? 7/12/22 ? 28¢
Back to work 8/ 8/23 ? 22¢
. 6/29/24 ’ 30¢
Reemployed 9/18/29 as Insp. 30¢
10/14/29 32¢
Home
Reemployed 6- 9-30 Helper 24¢
Home
Reemployed 12 9-30 Insp. 24¢
= 3-16-31 Insp. 2A¢
Home
Reemployed 5-11-31 Insp. 24¢
No decrease 9- 632 Insp. 24¢
GI 7-31-33 30¢
GI 12-25-33 32¢
GI 4-16-34 35¢
1-18-37 Inspector 37¢
GI 3-28-37 tHe
GI 3- 9-41 49¢
NN
:
.
104
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 52.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WEsrTeEkEN District or New YorK
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Carl D. Barney— Emp. No. 04480
Service Date—9-17-20
RD #4—Corning, N. Y. _. Retired 10-64
L ;
I
N_ Date Rate
a2
3- 2-26 36¢ Reemployed by A. G. Wilcox—As
helper*
5-23-27 39¢
8-29-27 42¢
6-18-28 45¢
41-29 48¢
6-17-29 53¢ Inspector
9- 6-32 48¢ General decrease
7-31-33 53¢ - Increase
58¢ “ “
12- 2-35 61¢ Special Inspector
11-30-36 66¢ Inspector—Dept. 12
3-28-37 7l¢ General Increase
3 941 76¢ °#8“ .
14 9- 241 90¢ Work as Gaffer
hom Seam om who
a
ja
Jot ph feet
IDM
* Prior periods of employment in 1920-1921-1923-
1924-1925 were as gatherer—hand bulbs. The
intervening periods were lay-offs due to no work;
other employment ete.
i ’ ROP Pe Io mee _—
5
105
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 53.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WEeEsTERN District or New York =
(Case title omitted in printing.)
James H. Thompson Service No.—5-24-20
RD#1 Snvona N. Y. Retired 10-1-64
L
I
N Date Rate
E
No.
1 10-27-19 .275 Employed as Helper by L. West
2 3- 1-20 30 ;
3 3- 1-20 33
4 4415-20 Quit
5 52420 .365+ Reemployed by W. Foshay
6 7-26-20 Al *
7 11- 1-20 43
8 3-21-21 Laid Off (was Inspector in Finishing)
9 4 3-21 40 General Change of Rate
10 = 1-30-22 .36 Reemployed as Helper by H. Harris
11 10- 222 38 .
12 1- 1-23 40
13 5-21-23 42
14 10-13-24 45
15 1- 426 48
16 12- 3-28 Tranferred to A. Wilcox
17 —- 1-13-30 03 Inspector #6
} 18 1-132 .53 Transferred to M. Lewis #2 Inspec-
tor
19 2 632 48 General Decrease
20 = =7- 1-33 .o3 General Increase
21 4415-34 a5. * + ‘i
22 12- 7-36 60 Inspector #12
23 3-28-37 65 Pyrex Finishing #2
24 «=3- 9-41 .70
25 3-28-41 15
26 11-30-41 80 Cutter, Inspector, Lantion Filer
106
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 58.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN District or New YorkK
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEPOSITION OF SETH J. McKIBBIN.
[November 7, 1968. ]
Appearances :
Isabelle R. Cappello, Esq., Deputy Counsel for Regional
Litigation, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D. C., ap-
pearing for the Plaintiff.
Francis V. La Ruffa, Esq., Chief Trial Attorney, 341 9th
Ave., New York, New York, for the Plaintiff.
Scott F. Zimmerman, Esq., Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay,
747 Union Trust Bldg., Pittsburgh, Pa., appearing for the
Corning Glass Works.
[7] Whereupon, SETH J. McKIBBIN, was called as a
witness, and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mrs. Cappello:
[8] Q. What is your present title? A. Manager of
Statistics and Surveys.
Q. And in connection with these duties, do you have
general powers to exercise judgment and discretion in
dealing with them? A. Yes.
PRLS ET PN
107
Platntiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. Mr. McKibbin, did you answer Plaintiff’s first and
second set of interrogatories on behalf of Corning Glass
Works? A. I did.
Q. Mr. McKibbin, I would first like to question you
about rates back in 1930. You are familiar with answers
eight and nine the interrogatories? Would you like to
look them over? A. Yes, please.
(Document handed to witness.)
Yes, I am familiar with these.
Q. And you are claiming, for purposes of this suit, that
the time of day work is a working condition? A. Yes.
Q. Is Mr. E. W. Noble considered by Corning Glass to
be an expert in Corning Glass’s Job evaluation plans?
[9] A. He is, in my opinion.
[13] A. To the best of my knowledge, there were no
schedules as such.
Q. Were there male and female rates in 19307 A. There
were rates being paid to men and women in 1930, yes.
Q. And they were on a different scale? A. Well, since
there was no scale, I cannot testify that they were on a
different scale.
Q. Were men and women on separate seniority lists
in 1930? A. I am not equipped to answer this. It is my
best understanding that there were no such things as sen-
iority lists in 1930?
Q. Well, were women paid at lower rates than men
in 1930 for inspection work? A. The record demonstrates
this. ©
108
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. In answer nine to the first set of interrogatories, you
said that men on the night shift were diverted from other
jobs to go onto inspection work. What were these other
jobs? [14] A. Most of them were in the blowing room,
a variety of jobs from helper to gatherer, according to the
record that we have established.
Q. Gatherer? A. Yes.
Q. Would you please describe the duties of these jobs?
A. Well, in general, it is my understanding that the helper
in the blowing room was what we now call a shop boy, and
in essence he was a low skilled part of the crew that formed
glass by hand. The gatherer was a higher level job in the
same team and his job was to gather the glass from the
molten tank and begin the forming operation.
{17] Q. You state in answer nine that the inspection
worker enjoyed less prestige than other activities on the
night shift. Was it dirtier work? A. No, I think it was
considered to be female work.
Q. The men wouldn’t work at the female rate? A. I
am not prepared to say that they wouldn’t, they disliked it.
Q. What were the hours of steady night shift, day
shift and afternoon shift in 1930, approximately? A. I
am not sure what the day and afternoon shift was, speci-
fically, it is my understanding that the night shift started
at either ten, eleven, or twelve at night.
[18] Q. And what rate were the men assigned when they
were put on inspection work in 1930? A. Fifty-three
cents.
109
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. And so they got an increase for going on inspection
work? A. They received an increase in their base rate
for going on inspection work.
Q. Why was that, Mr. McKibbin, do you know? A.
It is my understanding that these men worked in the blow-
ing room on an incentive operation, and while their rate
of pay was, I believe, forty-eight cents, that their earned
rate, if you will, was considerably above that, and that the
increase in their base rate was necessary to encourage
them to take this demeaning work.
Q. Demeaning because it was women? <A. In their
judgment, it was demeaning.
Q. Did there come a time when newly hired men were
put on inspection work? A. TI am sure it came along
eventually. I am not sure when.
Q. And when the newly hired men came, were they
[19] given the women’s rate or the men’s rate? A. I
would assume that they were paid corresponding to the—to
their training and experience, being paid to the men al-
ready performing the job.
Q. What kind of lifting and carrying did the men in-
spectors do in 1930? A. It is my understanding that the
men inspectors on the night shift did their own utility
work.
[32] Q. How long did Corning Glass Works have separ-
ate male and female hiring rates? A. For as long as I
have been able to—Well, let me restate it, as long as I
know.
Q. Would they have had them in 19461 [33] A. Yes.
Q. And in 1930? A. Yes.
110
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKtbbin—Direct.
Q. What was the minimum hiring rates for men and
women on June 9, 1964, would they be the rates you have
just stated? A. No, they would not.
Q. What would they be? A. According to Exhibit
K-10 and K-11—
Mrs. Cappello: Off the record a minute.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McKibbin: According to sheets 10 and 11
of Exhibit A, the male starting rate was $1.99, and—
these should be pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit A, the
male starting rate was $1.99, and the female starting
rate was $1.89.
Mr. Zimmerman: What was the date?
Mr. McKibbin: Dated November 19, 1962.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. And I ask if these were the rates on June 9, 1964,
and these were the rates? A. That’s right.
Q. What were they on June 11, 19641 A. We no
longer had minimum starting rates on a sex basis, it was
dependent upon the job classification the employee was
hired into.
[36] Q. Is the revised hourly rate schedule furnished
in answer three to the first set of interrogatories the same
as the eleven sheet of Exhibit A? A. Yes.
Q. And this revised hourly rate schedule went into
effect on June 11, 19647 A. It did.
Q. Mr. McKibbin, I want you to explain for us how the
rates for men and women inspectors were effected by the
change from separate male and female rate schedules that
111
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
had been [37] used up to June 11, 1964 to the one revised
rate schedule, and I would like you to use in this connection
Exhibit A, B and C to your supplemental answers to our
second set of interrogatories, and the eleventh sheet of
Exhibit A to this deposition.
* . *
4
Q. Mr. McKibbin, I am going to hand you Exhibit A
to your supplemental answer 22, Exhibit C to supplemental
answer 23 and Exhibit B to supplemental answer 22.
Using these Exhibits, plus sheet eleven of Exhibit A to
your deposition, please explain how the rates for men and
women inspectors in class C, class B, T. V. and general
T. V. inspection work were effected by the change from
separate male and female rate schedules that had been used
| up until [38] June 11 to the one revised hourly rate sched-
: ule? A. Let me just get organized here, because I’m not
sure what you want.
Mr. McKibbin: Looking at the female schedule
dated November 19, 1962 I believe the class C female
inspectors were a group 3, with job evaluation .215
to .235 with a rate range running from $1.89 to
$1.97.
On the schedule that became effective Juné 11,
1964, they were classified as “new group” 1, and
their rate of pay was $1.97. Any female employee
who was—whose rate of pay on June 10, 1964 was
$1.89, $1.9314 or $1.9514 received an immediate ad-
justment effective June 11, 1964 to the rate of
$1.97%%.
112
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Female class B inspectors, I believe were group 6,
under the rate schedule effective November 19, 1962,
and the rate of pay ran from $1.89 through $2.05).
On June 11, pursuant to the schedule that was made
effective that date, any employee, any class B in-
spector employee, female, who was receiving less
than $1.9714 received an immediate increase to
_ [39] $1.9744, and employees who were rated at
$1.9914 were increased to $2.0114, and those who
were rated $2.051% remained the same.
By Mrs. Cappello: When you say, “Class B”, you
also referred to general T. V.?
A. Anything that I have said about the class B inspec-
tors would be equally applicable to the general T. V.—
° Q. And anything that you have said about class C would
be ‘applicable to T. V. inspector? A. Yes, on the day
shifts, as in regards to the men, on the night shift, June
10, 1964 a class C night inspector or a T. V. night inspector
was in old group 2, and the rates ran from—their job
evaluation points ran from 165 points to 235 points and
their individual hourly rates of pay ran from $1.99 to
$2.13.
On June 11 their rates would have been adjusted, any
night class C inspector with a rate of $1.99 would have
been increased to $2.01144. An employee at $2.0314 would
have been increased to $2.054%. An employee at $2.08),
would have been increased to $2.0914, and those at $2131,
had no rate change.
The class B night inspectors—
Q. And general T. V.? A. And general T. V., night
inspectors were in old group 4, which is a point value run-
113
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
ning from 300 to 350 points, and their rates ran from $1.99
to $2.2344. Similarly any [40] employee on one of those
classifications who was rated at $1.99 would have been in-
creased to $2.01. An employee at $2.031%4 would have
been increased to $2.0514. One at $2.0814 would have been
increased to $2.0914, and those at $2.1314—$2.181% and
$2.23% would not have had a rate adjustment.
Q. Would you now explain the hourly group number
conversion table, and for what purposes that was used?
A. This table shows—this table shows that we converted
old group numbers to new group numbers by combining
old female group numbers 1, 2, and 3-A into new group
number 1. Old female group numbers 4 and 5-A into new
group 2. Old female group number 6-A into new group
number 3. Old female group number 1 and female group
number 7-A into group 4, and old male group number 2
and old female group number 8-A to new group number
5, and so forth.
Q. Does this conversion table indicate that no men went
into group numbers 1, 2, and 3? A. On June 11 I believe
that is so.
Q. What does the irregular schedule mean? A. The
irregular schedule applies in certain class type activities,
‘in which the lower end of the rate range of the higher job
which overlapped the upper end of the lower level job was
eliminated, and this may be the case in class-B and ( in-
spectors. I am not sure.
Q. Why were decimal points and the letter “A” in the
[41] female column but there were none in the male
column? A. There could well have been decimals in the
male column, and there would he—the “A” designation
114
Plaintiff's Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
under the female groupings under the old program was
aware of disinguishing between the two schedules. It was
an administrative thing, we frequently refer to them as A’s
or as female schedules.
Q. So all the men inspectors went into GP numbers
5 and 7 on the revised hourly rate schedule on June 11?
A. All the male inspectors being on the night shift, that
is true.
Q. And all of the women inspectors went into GP num-
ber 1 or 3 on the revised schedule on June 11, 1964? A. Yes.
Q. In answer 20 to our first set of interrogatories, you
told us that the job evaluation points were the same on all
shifts for class C, B, T. V. and general T. V. inspectors.
Under both your SJ and H plan and your CGW plan, the
latter plan rating effort and the SJH plan not rating
effort— A. That is my recollection.
Q. Would you like to see that answer?
(Document handed to witness.)
A. Yes.
Q. This being so, Mr. McKibbin, why didn’t the men
and women go into the same wage group when you con-
verted them to one rate schedule? [42] A. Well, I think
this is what happened up in the history of thirty-some years
worth of industrial experience and negotiating with the
Union for some part of that time. I think that is the answer
in summary. This is a whole wealth of background.
Q. When you went to the one revised hourly rate
schedule, did you preserve the rates that were in the male
and female schedules? A. If I understand your question,
no. There were changes.
115
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. Well, at the top of the—Why were there changes?
A. Well, we eliminated all of the rates below $1.9714, as a
for instance—
Q. Employees doing elass C, class B, T. V. and general
T. V. inspection work who were at the maximum range,
were their rates changed when you went from the male and
female schedule to the revised hourly rate schedule? A. I
believe not.
_Q. So their rates were preserved in the conversion
process? A. Atthe maximum. Yes.
[50] Q. Has this differential between utility workers
and inspectors been about the same since 19642 A. Ap-
proximately.
Q. Does the base hourly rate of a utility worker change
depending on the shift he works? A. Not his base hourly
rate.
Q. Does this result in a utility worker getting more
then inspectors on the day and afternoon shift and less on
the night shift? A. Would you restate that, please?
Q. Does this result in a utility worker on the day and
afternoon shift assisting an inspector getting more than
the inspector? A. Yes, on the day shift?
Q. When the same utility worker goes onto the night
shift, he gets less than the inspector? A. In base hourly
rates, is that your question?
Q. "Yes. A. Yes.
Q. From your experience in the industrial relations
[51] department, is there a sound economical reason for
such a situation? A. Yes, ma’am.
116
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. What is it? A. Well, this is inherent in the revolu-
tion of the rates of pay that Corning Glass Works currently
pays, and as we discussed earlier when the night shift
initially started we had to pay a premium and, I am using
my term now, in order to induce people to take on this un-
savory work and that rate has persisted down through the
years with the union’s knowledge and consent. It has been
a negotiable item.
Q. And the men just wouldn’t work at the women’s rate?
A. Yes.
2. 2. bd
[52] Is there a plant-wide night shift differential that is
paid for steady night shift work? A. There is a steady
night shift differential negotiated as part of the contract.
Q. What is the purpose of such a night shift differen-
tial? [53] A. Well, I am sure it is different things in the
minds of different people, but it is a generalization, I say
it was agreed upon the amount of compensation to be paid,
in addition to the individuals hourly rate for the undesir-
able hours of work.
Q. And for the inconvenience? A. For all aspects of
those undersirable hours.
Q. Have the men that do inspection work on the night
shift also gotten any plant wide night shift differential
that was negotiated— A. To the best of my knowledge
and belief, yes.
Q. Do any other men on steady night shift receive a
a higher base hourly rate than those doing the same job on
other shifts? A. Would you restate that, please.
Q. Do any other men on steady night shift receive a
higher base hourly rate than those that do the same work
| 117
| Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
\ Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
on the other two shifts? A. To the best of my knowledge
and belief there are no other people currently receiving a
| higher base rate on the day shift.
: Q. Has there ever been? A. As—
Q. Would you explain that action, please. A. Well,
years ago whenever we needed the historical [54] female
activities performed on the night shift as inspection, the
only way we could get it done was to get a man to do it, and
historically our experience was that we had to pay a premi-
um to get a man to do it.
Q. And I believe you said that utility workers get the
same base hourly rate on all shifts. Is that correct? A.
Yes.
Q. Do you have any inspectors who work steady on the
second shift? A. I am not sure, currently. We presum-
ably have had at some point in time.
Q. What are the hours of the second shift, are they—
A. I am not sure what you mean by the “second shift”.
Q. The afternoon shift. A. The afternoon shift nor-
mally starts at 2:00 o’clock p.m., 3:00 p.m, or 4:00 p.m.
Q. And last until what hourt A. For an eight hour
period. A
Q. Do you pay a plant-wide shift differential for the
afternoon? A. We have a six cent shift differential for
shifts starting at 2:00, 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock, as detailed in
the contract.
Q. Aren’t the second shift hours less desirable and
convenient than the day shift hours? [55] A. I am not
prepared to pass a judgment on that, except as it pertains
to me.
118
Platntiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Q. You may answer that question as it pertains to you,
then. A. 1 have worked shifts, and to me the most dis-
agreeable hours possibly would be the night shifts, steady
night shifts, in my personal opinion.
Q. My question was whether the afternoon shift hours,
lasting until midnight, aren’t less desirable and convenient
than the day shift hours? A. Iam sorry. Presumably, yes.
Q. Do second shift inspectors get the same base hourly
rate as the—Do the afternoon shift inspectors get the same
base hourly rate as the day shift inspectors? A. Yes.
Q. Why don’t they get a higher base hourly rate like
the third shift if it is to compensate for—let’s see—less de-
sirable and inconvenient working hours? A. I suppose the
right way to answer that is that we have never negotiated
such an understanding.
[57] Q. Well, you say that the factor other than sex ac-
counts for the differential in base hourly rates between the
men and the women is due to less desirable hours of work
and inconvenience of working steady nights, but you don’t
apply that throughout the plant; is that correct?
Mr. Zimmerman: I don’t know what you mean,
you don’t apply that—You don’t apply what?
Mrs. Cappello: Well, with other third shift em-
ployees, who do the same work, they all get the same
base hourly rate.
Mr. Zimmerman: First of all, are there—the
question is based on the same assumption that you
made in the last question, you say are there other
employees who worked different hours and do the
same work.
ere oe le}
Desire) (bi
119
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
Mrs. Cappello: All right. I will rephrase that
question.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Are there employees working a third shift, perform-
ing the same work as employees on the day and afternoon
shift? [58] A. Ona steady night basis?
Q. Yes. <A. I believe there are.
Q. Do they all get the same base hourly rate except for
inspectors? A. I believe so.
Q. Now, I don’t understand how you can say that that
differential, as between the inspectors is due to less desir-
» able hours of work, and inconvenience of steady nights,
since you don’t compensate other employees in that manner.
A. Well, as I have tried—
Mr. Zimmerman: Is that a question or a state-
ment?
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Do you agree with that, Mr. McKibbin? A. Well,
I think you are losing the sight of the historical derivation
of the rates that we pay inspectors.
'Q. And that historical reason is that the men wouldn’t
work for what the women were getting; is that right? A.
Yes.
Q. And isn’t that a fact—
Mr. Zimmerman: Well, just a second now, isn’t
there more to it than that, Mr. McKibbin?
Mr. McKibbin: Among other things, that is true.
120
Plaintiff's Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. What are these other things? [59] A. Well as
we have discussed earlier, the loss of incentive income, the
loss of opportunity to work overtime, the disagreeable
hours and so forth.
([76] By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Were the men inspectors assigned to do inspection
work on the day and afternoon shift on a temporary basis?
A. Would you restate that, please?
Q. Were the men inspectors assigned to do inspection
work on the day and afternoon shifts on a temporary basis?
Mr. Zimmerman: At what point in time are you
speaking?
Mrs. Cappello: After the men were able to get on
to the day and afternoon shifts.
The Witness: Not to the best of my knowledge.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Those were permanent assignments? A. As per-
manent as any of our transactions are.
Q. What period of time does exhibit I cover?
[77] Q. What period of time does exhibit I cover? A.
From June 1, 1966, to June 2, 1968.
[87] Q. You refer, in several of your answers, to past
practices under your contracts. In 1944, before the past
practice clause was first enacted, what were the rates of
the men and women inspectors? A. I think you need to
Si leetdathies nak Da bk isi
De MnT ATA AORL ILO: a
121
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Direct.
understand that there was no schedule at that time. We
didn’t have the same type of business management that we
have now, so as a result of the necessity to establish some
of this, I have gone back and reconstructed a composite
series of rates that were applicable to men and women in-
spectors during the wartime period.
Now, quite frankly, some of these records I couldn’t find,
there is a blank spot in here, for example—
[88] Q. Will you explain what those rates were, Mr.
McKibbin, as best you know? A. Well, as best I have
been able to reconstruct them, and if I may take a period
time, here, as of 7-9-44, I was able to establish that there
were men classified as inspectors, Class B, with a hiring
rate of $.60, and a maximum of $.85, and men classified as
inspector, Class A, at $.90. Women were classified in four
different classifications, the lowest of which was inspector—
standard ability, with a hiring rate of $.50, and a maximum
$.59. Above that was an inspector above standard ability.
which had a single rate of $.61, and above that was an in-
spector-superior ability, that was paid $.63, and there was
an inspector-supervisor, outstanding ability, that receive
$.65 per hour.
Q. Were these the rates, in effect, then, when the first
union contract was signed, to the best of your knowledge?
A. These were in effect as of July 9, 1944, which would
have been after the contract was signed.
Q. Were they different before the contract was signed?
A. Yes. On 7-9-44, there was a general increase, which
incorporated in an attendance bonus into the rate, it was
122
Plaintiff's Exhibit 58.
Deposition of Seth J. McKibbin—Cross.
the result of negotiations and had to have the prior ap-
proval of the War Labor Board, and it was ultimately ap-
proved and negotiated, and it was implemented on July
9, 1944.
[97] CROSS EXAMINATION by Mr. Zimmerman:
Q. Mr. McKibbin, earlier you testified that women were
paid at lower rates than men for inspection work in 1930.
Were there any differences in the inspection work per-
formed by the women in 1930 as opposed to that performed
by the men? A. Yes, there was a substantial difference,
as I understand it.
Q. Well, can you explain what you mean by that? A.
Yes. The women, at that time, did no lifting, as such.
They had male helpers on the two day shifts who did the
heavy work for the female inspectors on those two shifts.
On the night shift the male helpers did not exist, and the
men did their own lifting, which the women had help on in
the day shifts.
Q. So I gather, in addition to the fact that the men
worked different hours, that is, they worked the steady
night shift, there was also a difference in work? A. Yes,
that is my understanding.
—
123
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 68-A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WEsTERN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
i Rates Changes—Oct. 21, 1946
EXHIBIT III
FEMALE SCHEDULE FOR DERIVING RATE
RANGES AND STEPS
Corning, New York Plants
Min. Max
Trainee Inter- Rate Rate
Wage Job Hourly mediate of of
Evaluation Starting Rate Rate Rate
No. Points Rate Step Range Rate Steps Range
-1 Upto160 60 .65
2 165-210 .60 65 67
3 215-235 .60 65 .67 .69
4 240-265 .60 65 67 42.69 ~~ «471
5 270-295 60 65 .67 69 71 73
6 300-345 60 65 67 69 71 73 477
7 350-395 65 67 469 71 73 477) «Bi
8 400-435 65 69 71 73 77 #81 85
9 440-475 67 ~=.71 73 8.77 ~=681 85 89
10 480-515 69 73 77 81 85 89 93
11 520-555 71 «6.77)~=«6©«.82)=— 85 ia Ks—sCi«QBWCéC«éZ’:
12 560-585 73 81 85 89 93 £97 1.01
13 590-615 77 8 89 93 97 1.01 1.05
Effective January 6, 1946 (Original Schedule Plus 8¢)
124
' PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 68-B.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
Rate Change—Oct. 21, 1946
EXHIBIT IV
MALE SCHEDULE FOR DERIVING RATE
. RANGES AND STEPS
Corning, New York Plants
Effective January 6, 1946 (Original Schedule Plus 10¢)
Min. Max.
Trainee Inter- Rate Rate
Wage Job Hourly mediate of of
Group Evaluation Starting Rate Rate Rate
No. Points Rate Step Range Rate Steps Range
1 Upto160 70 75 80
2 165-235 70 7 80 85
3 240-295 70 7 80 8 0
4 300-350 70 75 80 8 90 9%
5 355-395 70 80 8 90 95 1.00
6 400-440 70 75 85 90 95 1.00 1.05
7 445-485 75 80 90 95 1.00 1.05 1.10
8 490-535 80 8 95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
9 540-570 85 90 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
10 575-600 90 95 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
11 605-630 95 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
12 635-660 1.00 1.05 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35
13 665-685 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
14 690-710 1.10 1.15 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45
15 715-730 1.15 1.20 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
16 735-755 1.20 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.56
17 760-775 1.25 1.30 140 1.45 1.50 1.56 1.62
18 780-795 1.30 1.35 1.45 1.50 1.56 1.62 1.68
19 800-810 1.35 1.40 1.50 1.56 1.62 1.68 1.74
20 815-825 1.40 1.45 1.56 1.62 1.68 1.74 1.81
21 830-845 1.45 1.50 1.62 1.68 1.74 1.81 1.88
22 850-860 1.50 1.56 1.68 1.74 1.81 1.88 1.95
23 865-875 1.56 1.62 1.74 181 1.88 1.95 2.02
24 880-890 1.62 1.68 1.81 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.10
25 895-905 1.68 1.74 188 1.95 2.02 2.10 2.18
26 910-920 1.74 1.81 1.95 2.02 210 2.18 2.26
|
15
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WestErRN District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
CORNING GLASS WORKS
REVISED HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
CORNING, NEW YORK
GP. No. Rate ScHEDULE
New Trainee Min. 2nd Mid 4th Maz.
1.975
1.975(a) 2.015
1.975(a) 2.015(b) 2.055
2.015(a) 2.055(b) 2.095
2.015(a) 2.055(b) 2.095 2.135(e)
2.015(a) 2.055(b) 2.095 2135 2.185
2.015(a) 2.055(b) 2.095 2135 2185 2.935
2.015(a) 2.095 2.135 2185 2935 2.985
2.015(a) 2.135 2185 2935 2985 2345
10 2.055(b) 2.185 2935 2985 92345 2.40
11 2.095 2.235 2985 2345 240 2475
12 2135 22985 2345 240 92475 2545
13 2185 2345 240 2475 2545 263
14 2235 240 2475 2545 263 269
15 2285 2475 2545 263 269 2765
16 2345 2545 263 269 2765 2845
7 240 263 269 2765 2845 9995
18 2475 269 2765 2845 9995 92995
19 2545 2.76) 2845 2995 2995 3085
20 263 2845 2995 92995 3085 318
21 269 2995 2995 3085 318 3.975
22 2.765 2.995 3.08 318 3275 336
23 2.845 3.085 3.18 ‘si 3.36 3.465
)
CONOR WD
24 2.925 3.18 3.275 3.465 3.565
25 2.995 3.275 3.36 0.465 3.565 3.675
26 3.085 3.36 3.465 3.565 3.675 3.785
27 3.18 3.465 3.565 3.675 3.785 3.90
126
_ Plaintiff’s Exhibit 69.
(a) Time progression increase due after one (1) month at
this rate.
(b) Time progression increase due after three (3) months
at this rate.
(c) On transfer to an equal or lower rated job:
1. An employe in or below this rate range will re-
ceive credit for service toward his six (6) month
control period for merit progression.
2. An employe at or above this rate should not be
reduced below it except to the highest rate in the
rate range.
/pb
June 10, 1964
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 76-20.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western Disraict or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
AGREEMENT
Between
CORNING GLASS WORKS
and the
AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS’ UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA
A. F.L.-C. LO.
Including Local Union
No. 1000
January 9, 1964
ARTICLE XII SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
Section 1. Workers employed on shifts starting at 2:00
p.m. 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., will be paid $0.06 per hour
as a premium for such work.
Section 2. Workers employed on non-rotating shifts
starting at 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m. and Midnight will be paid
$0.12 per hour as a premium for such work.
Section 3. Workers employed on rotating shifts start-
ing at 10:00 p.m, 11:00 p.m., and Midnight will be paid
$0.08 per hour as a premium for such work.
128
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 82.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western Disrraicr or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
To:
Mr. W. J. Bradshaw
Mr. R. M. Dorwart
Mr. F. W. Gillen
Mr. D. S. Hall
Mr. P. A. Lang
Mr. J. L. Rhodes
Mr. S. Somers
Mr. G. R. Yeakey
From: Charles A Francik
May 4, 1964
The attached material, Exhibit I, was used for a pre-
sentation to Industrial Engineers in the Corning area con-
cerning the Equal Pay Act and:its implications. At the
same time, Exhibits II and III were distributed to serve
as guidance in determining possible Equal Pay Act viola-
tions and providing a method by which these could be
recorded. Any possible violations were then to be referred
back to this office so that there could be understanding
of the Corporation’s possible total liabilit.
In view of the time problem, it is not possible to invite
the Industrial Engineers from the branch plants into
Corning. As a substitute, it would be wise if you, your
Industrial Engineer, and Personnel Supervisor reviewed
the attached material (referring any questions which you
might have to me) and make a comparison of female to
male jobs in your own plant. Once having developed this
———————
|
129
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 82.
information, I would appreciate it if you would record the
possible violations and send them to me so that we are
better aware of problems in each plant.
The material is as uncomplicated as we can make it at
this time, but there are plenty of areas where misunder-
standing might develop. If you have any questions, please
contact me and we will do our best to assist you.
ee ee
/caw
Atts.
: EFFECTIVE DATE—EQUAL PAY ACT
CGW EVALUATION RANDOM RATE
SJ &H PLANTS PLANTS PLANTS
All Corning Plants Martinsburg , Charleroi
Bradford Greencastle Frederick 6/11/64
Parkersburg Danville, Va.
Albion 6/11/64 Raleigh 6/11/64
Greenville Buckhannon
Corning Packaging Co. Penndell
Wellsboro 1/20/65 Paden City 5/31/65 Cohart-
Louisville 12/4/64
Harrodsburg 2/ 1/65
Muskogee 3/ 1/65
Central Falls 6/11/65
Danville, Ky. 6/11/65
Wuere Is Our Prosiem?
Each plant should examine its local situation to develop
compliance problems.
By Plants:
Plants using S J & H Evaluation System Discriminatory
Wage schedules.
Plants using negotiated rates.
130
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 82.
By Payroll:
1. Principally Hourly Payroll.
2. Weekly Payroll also affected—look out for:
a. Quality Control and Lab. Testing where they are on
the Weekly Payroll.
'b. “Sleepers”—where job descriptions for male incum-
bents may contain overstatements of the functions.
By Kind of Work: |
Usually low physical effort; look out for:*
1. Inspection
2. Quality Control
3. Machine loading and unloading
4. Material transfer
5. Packing
6. Tool & parts supply storage
7. Custodial
By Job Level:
— a
$/Hr.
1060 Points
under CGW
<_
Evaluated Points ©
131
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 91.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEPOSITION OF ARTHUR J. AGETT
[November 7, 1968]
Appearances :
Mrs. Isabelle R. Cappello, Deputy Counsel for Regional
Litigation, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.,
on behalf of Plaintiff.
Francis V. LaRuffa, Esq., Chief Trial Attorney, U.S. De-
partment of Labor, 341-9th Avenue, New York, N. Y., on
behalf of Plaintiff.
Scott F. Zimmerman, Esq., Reed, Smith, Shaw and Me-
Clay, 747 Union Trust Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
on behalf of Defendant.
{3] ARTHUR J. AGETT, was called as a witness and
testified as follows:
Examination by Mrs. Cappello:
[4] Q. During your time in Pressware as Assistant to
Plant Manager and Plant Manager in 1942-1945, were they
operating a third shift upon which inspectors worked? A.
Yes, this was a continuous production operation down there,
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Q. These were the World War II years? A. Yes.
132
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 91.
Deposition of Arthur J. Agett—Dtrect.
Q. And you have been named as the person qualified to
testify as to working conditions and rates during World
War II? A. Well, in respect to rates—
Q. Well, working conditions. A. Okay.
Q. Did women inspectors work on the night shift during
World War II? A. Yes, as I recall.
Q. Did they get the same base hourly rate as the women
on the other shifts? A. Yes.
{5] Q. If this is so, how—since it is so, how were they
compensated for working less desirable and inconvenient
hours? A. I don’t recall that we had any shift differential
at that time, and I believe they were not compensated for
that purpose, or for that condition.
Q. Were the utility workers on the night shift at this
timet A. Does your question relate to, in respect to the
inspection work, because you see there are various other
operations going on in the plant.
Q. Did the utility workers serve as inspectors on the
night shift during this period? A. No, not to my knowl-
edge.
Q. But there were utility workers on the night shift?
A. There might have been, I don’t recall specifically. There
were no utility workers in the inspection department of the
night shift, as I recall.
Q. Why was this? A. Well, we used utility workers on
the day shift to do lifting and trucking, the work that we
didn’t expect women to do. This was not necessary on the
night shift where we had night inspectors. I don’t think
we manned any night shifts entirely by women, so that the
men would do the moving of boxes, the trucking of ware
away, the positioning of skids and boxes adjacent to the
inspection area where the women were inspecting?
. sa ad
rm
AUD Aiiap SD Tied ag eae
af MUNG EP DRIAL DAY eS UEM SET PEY LED
133
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 93.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western District or New York
(Case title omitted in printing.)
DEPOSITION OF EARLE LEWIS
[November 7, 1968. ]
Appearances :
Mrs. Isabelle R. Cappello, Deputy Counsel for Regional
Litigation, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.,
on behalf of Plaintiff.
Francis V. La Ruffa, Esq., Chief Trial Attorney, U. S.
Department of Labor, 341-9th Avenue, New York, N. Y.,
on behalf of Plaintiff.
Scott F. Zimmerman, Esq., Reed, Smith, Shaw and
McClay, 747 Union Trust Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, on behalf of Defendant.
PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
EARLE LEWIS was called as a witness and testified as
follows:
Examination by Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Are you employed by Corning Glass Works, Mr.
Lewis? A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been employed by Corning? A.
Since December, 1943. |
134
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
Q. In what capacities have you worked, and what were
the approximate dates on which you worked? A. I was
working with the Cost Office on special assignments—Cen-
tral Cost System at the time, for approximately three years;
and then I worked as a supervisor of time and cost in “A”
factory until 1955; and I went to work in General Industrial
Engineering as a Weights Administrator until 1967; and
I became a Supervisor of Employment, and non-Exempt
Pensions, which is basically a staff — in the General
Industrial Engineering Division.
Q. Mr. Lewis, you have been named as the person -quali-
fied to testify as to the | ceaciabes for posting vacancies. A.
Thank you.
Q. Would you please explain those procedures? A. In
the first place, vacancy occurs when there is no person who
is currently employed has a right to the classification. The
procedure is to—for the plant who meets or has a vacancy,
to define the job and the wage, send it to the central Person-
nel Office, where it is verified as being an opening, or a
vacancy. It is posted in the plant that needs the person and
the main plant Personnel Office—or in the union office
window.
Mr. Zimmerman: Let me inject a comment, if I
may. Are all jobs posted, Mr. Lewis?
The Witness: No, they are not.
Mr. Zimmerman: ill right, just so that you know
we are not talking about all jobs.
Please go on.
Mr. LaRuffa: Well, I think you were referring—
you had qualified your answer that these are vacan-
cies occurring or positions that don’t exist, only—
aia tidinmatiie ——
135
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
The Witness: If persons do not have a classifi-
cation.
Mr. LaRuffa: That’s right, classification.
Mr. Zimmerman: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Zimmerman: On the record.
Mr. LaRuffa: Just give us the situation relative
to posting of these positions, those that you do have
to post, and those that you don’t and why you don’t,
and why you do.
[5] The Witness: By negotiations with the union,
there are certain jobs that are entry jobs and these
jobs do not have to be posted. They may be filled
from the street when there are openings or they may
be filled by regression of persons or they may be fill-
ed by a new word, transfer request.
By Mrs. Cappello (continuing) :
Q. Are Class B and general TV jobs posted? A. They
are not.
Q. Then how can anyone bid on one of these jobs? A.
They fill out what is known as a transfer request. They re-
quest the plant, the shift and the job that they would like.
Q. And you consider that bidding on a job? A. This
is the equivalent, yes, and they are recognized before people
are hired from the streets, or who are put on the job under
voluntary procedures.
Mr. LaRuffa: This is a totally voluntary proce-
dure that is followed by Corning?
The Witness: Yes.
136
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
Mr. LaRuffa: Not at as a result of union negoti-
ations?
The Witness: They have agreed to all of our
procedures, yes, sir.
Mr. LaRuffa: When did this go into effect, Mr.
Lewis?
[6] The Witness: This I don’t know. I have not been
in the business that long.
Mr. Zimmerman: Perhaps you can give us the
earliest point at which you know it was in effect?
The Witness: Around 1950, I would say.
By Mrs. Cappello (continuing) :
Q. Do you know how many women have requested trans-
fers to the night shift—any Class C, B, TV or general TV
inspectors who have requested transfers to the night shift?
A. MayI read—
Mr. Zimmerman: This is some work that Mr.
Lewis did pursuant to the request that I made after
you suggested it.
The Witness: How would you like the presenta-
tion?
By Mrs. Cappello (continuing) :
Q. Well, I just want to know how many women have re-
quested transfers to the night shift?
Mr. Zimmerman: You have it broken by time
periods?
‘The Witness: Right, in my plans.
peas babbe dike
PE LSTLP Pel PUAN
137
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
[7] By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. Have many of these requests for the transfers of a
night shift been because the women wanted the higher rate?
Mr. Zimmerman: If you know why the women
put in the request.
The Witness: I do not know.
By Mrs. Cappello:
Q. I believe it appears on those transfer requests. A.
They are on there, yes. I don’t know what all of the reasons
are.
Q. Would you like to look through them? A. I would
have to to give you an answer.
Q. Would you look through them to see if they requested
the night shift because they wanted the higher rate?
Mr. Lewis, we are just talking about night shift inspection
jobs in the Class C, Class B, TV and general TV. A. This
is all this is.
Q. Would you like to stipulate—
[8] Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, we will stipulate that
among those women who requested transfers to the
night shift during the period of time that Mr. Lewis
has testified about, that some did so because they
desired to receive a higher rate of pay at night.
Q. Do you know the number who requested night jobs in
those classifications ?
138
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
[10] By Mrs. Cappello (continuing) :
Q. Mr. Lewis, would you continue with your testimony,
please. A. Yes.
I would like to explain the terms which we are going to
use. We use the word “assign” for a person who actually
was given the job that they requested. We will use the
word “out-dated” to indicate that the person either left
their current position and no longer could be considered
for this job, or that the six months that is stated on the ap-
plication expired. * We will use the word “refused” for any
person who was given the opportunity and they turned it
down when we were going to give it to them.
I will take this by years. Women who requested night
work in 1966 were fifteen. Four of them were given the
job, assigned, eleven out-dated. There were two women
in 1966 who requested any shift. When given the oppor-
tunity, they refused. 1967, there were sixty-one women
requested night work; assigned, thirty-four; out-dated,
twenty-two; and refused, five. There were fifty-three
women in 1967 who requested any shift. There were four
assigned, twenty-nine out-dated, and twenty refused. 1968.
to date, there were [11] fifty-two women requested work.
there were thirty-four assigned, ten out-dated. eight re-
fused. There was likewise, twenty-seven women who re-
quested any shift, there were seven assigned, nine out-
dated, and eleven refused.
Q. Mr. Lewis, would a transfer request hecome ont-
dated if, within six months no vacancy had occurred? A.
That is correct.
Mr. LaRuffa: This is with respect to women, the
firures that you have given me?
RR atteal RLF RG Me aes detain ab bnabaNaedin
aay
Th noi dt A beds eieten
Sh iV at nO TEN uh 9S 9
[12]
139
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 93.
Deposition of Earle Lewis—Direct.
The Witness: Every thing is in respect to women.
Mr. LaRuffa: Are there any records similarly
kept for men who have requested to day, do you have
those?
The Witness: Yes, again we will have an arithme-
tic problem, they are on the same sheet.
Mrs. Cappello: Off the record.
(Diseussion off the record. And a five minute
recess was taken.)
Mrs. Cappello: On the record.
The Witness: In 1966, nine men requested work,
nights, and no men requested any shift. All nine were
out-dated. 1967, twenty-three requested night work.
Mr. LaRuffa: You mean requested day work?
The Witness: No, they requested night transfers:
that is what you requested.
Mr. LaRuffa: From night to day.
The Witness: No, we have no records to show
that, as far as I
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.