# Appendix — Corning Glass Works v. Brennan > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0298%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1974 - **Citation:** 417 U.S. 188 ## 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 [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? * APPENDIX A. SCOPE AND METHOD OR SURVEY Scope of Survey The survey included establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing glass containers for commercial packing and bottling, and for home canning, and those primarily engaged in manufacturing other glass and glassware, pressed, blown, or shaped from glass produced in the same establishment (industries 3221 and 3229, except textile glass fibers, as defined in the 1957 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, prepared by the U. 8. Bureau of the Budget). The establishments studied were selected from those em- ploying 20 workers or more at the time of reference of the data used in compiling the universe lists. The number of establishments and workers actually studied by the Bureau, as well as the number estimated to be in the industry during the payroll period studied, are shown in the table below. 143 Plaintiff's Exhibit 97. Estimated Number of Establishments and Workers Within the Scope of S and Number Studied, Pressed or Blown Glass and Glassware Industries,1 May 1 —_ Number of establishments? Workers in establishments scope of Production Office Industry and region? study Studied Total# workers workers Total All establishments : | United States5 ................. 216 122 97,089 81,748 5,774 78,187 Middle Atlantic .............. 58 29 =. 33,935 27,375 2,755 27,376 Border States ................ 45 23 14,135 12,268 787 = 10,676 Southeast ........0..cccceeeee 11 8 4611 4,050 128 3,845 Southwest ............0c0008e 17 12 4,814 4,140 238 = «3,753 Great Lakes ..............05. 59 35 19,325 26,390 = :1,409 26,286 ee errr 23 12 8429 7,318 407 —s 5,421 Glass containers establishments : B United States® ................. 104 70 = 9,389 51,848 2,606 48,394 Middle Atlantic .............. 30 18 19,205 16,689 927 15,482 Border States ..............8. 9 7 5,916 5,110 315 5,456 Southeast ........... cece eee 11 8 4,611 4,050 128 3,845 ee ere 12 9 3,798 3,280 148 = 3,191 ee Se eee ee 23 16 17,407 15,382 678 14830 Pasig oo. ...0c00ce0: fewnse sass 18 11 8,244 7,158 402 5,382 her pressed or blown glass and pemmaee wot Fo eon : United States5 ................. 112 52. 37,700 29,900 3,168 29,793 Middle Atlantic .............. 2B 11 14,730 10,686 1,828 11,894 a eee ere 36 16 8,219 7,158 472 5,220 ee eT ee OTe 36 19 12,918 11,008 731 11,456 1 Establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture of textile glass fibers were excluded. ? The regions used in this study include: Middle Atlantic—New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; Border States—Delaware, Dis- trict of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia ; Southeast—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Southwest—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; Great Lakes—lIllinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and Pacific—California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 3 Includes only establishments with 20 workers or more at the time of reference of the universe data. ‘ * Includes executive, professional, and other workers excluded from the separate production and office worker categories. * Includes data for regions in additiom to those shown separately. Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the study. * * * 144 AMENDED ANSWER. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN District or New York (Case title omitted in printing.) Defendant, Corning Glass Works, files the following Amended Answer to the Complaint in the above-captioned case: 1. The averments of Paragraphs I, II and III of the Complaint are admitted. 2. The averments of Paragraphs IV, V and VI of the Complaint are denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 3. The payments made to steady night shift inspectors were and are based upon a factor other than sex. 4. To the extent that‘the Complaint states a claim prior to November 1, 1964, it is barred by the statute of limita- tions. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, JOHN G. WAYMAN, SCOTT F. ZIMMERMAN, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MeCLAY, 747 Union Trust Building, Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania 15219, Counsel for Corning Glass Works. [Filed, July 10, 1970] =_ 145 JULY 10, 1970, OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WeEstTeErRN District or New YorkK GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, Vv. CORNING GLASS WORKS, a Corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1967-29. Appearances Francis V. LaRuffa, Chief Trial Attorney, and Mrs. Isabelle R. Cappello, Deputy Counsel for Regional Litiga- tion, United States Department of Labor, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay (John G. Wayman and Seott F. Zimmerman, of Counsel), Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, for the Defendant. The Secretary of Labor commenced this action under the provisions of Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U. S. C. § 217) to enjoin violations of Section 6(d) [29 U. S. C. § 206(d)] of the Act, and to restrain any with- holding of payment of wages found by the court to be due to emplovees under the Act. oa Se 146 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. The plaintiff, George P. Shultz, Secretary of Labor, sues on behalf of all Class C, Class B, TV, and General TV inspectors working during periods pertinent in this law- suit. Class B inspectors and Class C inspectors perform their functions in A Factory and in B & C Factory [also referred to herein as B Factory]. TV. inspectors and General TV inspectors function in the Pressware plant. This dispute arose because of the higher base wage rates paid to inspectors working on the steady night shift who allegedly performed work equal to that performed by inspectors on the day and afternoon shifts. Prior to June 1, 1966, except during World War II, only female inspectors worked in the disputed jobs on the day and afternoon shifts, and only male inspectors worked on the steady night shift. The defendant’s employees represented by the plaintiff include both male and female inspectors in the various job categories. Those male inspectors who did inspection work on the day and afternoon shifts after June 11, 1964, the effective date of the Equal Pay Act, are damaged monetarily if the violation charged is proven because, ab- sent a violation, the base rate for the day and afternoon shifts would equal the higher base rate paid at night. Section 6(d), commonly known as the Equal Pay Act, was enacted on June 10, 1963, to be effective one year thereafter. Section 6(d) (1) provides: “No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are em- ployed, between employees on the basis of sex by pay- ing wages to employees in such establishment at a — July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to em- ployees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires ; equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a senior- ity system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which ; measures earnings by quantity or quality of produe- tion; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this sub- section shall not, in order to comply with the provi- sions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.” To carry its burden of proof, the plaintiff must establish 3 by a fair preponderance of the evidence these elements: (1) The disputed jobs entail equal work,, that is. the performance of these jobs, under smiliar working conditions, require equal skill, effort, and responsi- E _ bility; ; (2) Within the same establishment, the defendant ; pays employees doing equal work a different wage F rate; A (3) The different wage rates are paid on account of sex. The four exceptions to the Act have been held’ to be affirmative defenses which must be pleaded and proven hy a defendant-employer. Wirtz v. Basic, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 786 (D. Nev. 1966). Finally, an employer may not decrease any employee’s pay rate to come in comformity with the Act. EON yO Te Ne Ae — 148 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. In its original answer, the defendant denied that the work performed by the men and women involved in this lawsuit was equal. After the trial, the defendant moved, pursuant to Rule-15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order permitting it to amend its answer to conform to the evidence. The proposed amendments are: (1) “The pay- ments made to steady night shift inspectors were and are based upon a factor other than sex;” (2) “To the extent that the complaint states a claim prior to November 1, 1964, it is barred by the statute of limitations.” Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is granted. At the beginning of the trial, the parties stipulated that the statute of limitations barred all claims arising prior to November 1, 1964. Accordingly, any award for back pay should be computed commencing on November 1, 1964. The court has considered the extensive memoranda of law submitted by the parties. What follows constitutes this court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. ESTABLISHMENT All three plants are separate, making different products. A Factory is engaged primarily in the production of pyrex products, B & C Factory in the production of optical pro- ducts, and the Pressware plant in the production of televi- sion products. A Factory and B & C Factory share an office building, are located back to back, and are connected by passageways. The Pressware plant is about one-half mile away from the other two. _ 149 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. Kach plant is an independent manufacturing unit, having its own management and engineering staff and a separate payroll department. A central employment office where all prospective em- ployees make their original applications services all Corning area plants. As a particular plant needs new workers, a final pre-employment interview is conducted at the separate personnel office of the plant, where the decision is made to accept or reject the applicant for em- ployment. After employment, an employee, by exercising his seniority rights, may transfer from one plant to an- other. However, a transfer from A Factory or B Factory to Pressware, or back to A Factory or B Factory from Pressware, is unusual since Class C and Class B inspectors work only in A Factory or B Factory, and TV and General TV inspectors work only in the Pressware plant. Most employees at Corning, including the inspectors, are represented by the American Flint Glass Workers of North America, Local 1000. One collective bargaining agreement covers all Corning area plants. All payroll checks are written on a computer on information supplied by each plant. The court finds that A Factory and B & C Factory con- stitute one establishment, and that the Pressware plant constitutes a separate establishment within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act. The reasons for this holding are that Pressware is separated from the other two plants, and he- cause the inspectors do not transfer back and forth between the Pressware plant and the other two plants. Phillips +. Walling, 324 U. S. 490 (1944); Mitchell +. Bekins Van df. Storage Company, 325 U. S. 1027 ( 1957), 29 CFR 800.108. 150 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. HISTORY. Steady night shift inspection jobs were added to existing rotating day and afternoon shift inspection jobs some time between 1925 and 1930, when the introduction of auto- matic production equipment made it necessary to inspect wares on three shifts. At that time, New York State law prohibited the employment of women between the hours of 10:00 P. M. and 6:00 A.M." The defendant did not pay additional wages in 1930 as a shift differential. However, in order to obtain male employees willing to perform what was regarded by the male employees as female work, the defendant had to pay the male employees a higher rate than it paid female employees who performed inspection work on the day and afternoon shifts. This higher base rate for steady night work was never paid for inspection work on the day and afternoon shifts until January 20, 1969, when the company and the union agreed to equalize base rates on all three shifts with payment retroactive to November, 1968. Beginning in the early 30’s, some inspectors at some stations on the steady night shift performed their own “utility work” which entailed, among other things, carry- ing heavy loads from the end of the lehr. Similar work on the day and afternoon shifts was performed by utility workers assigned to assist the female inspectors. Because of the manpower shortages during World War If, the defendant employed some women as steady night shift inspectors. These female night inspectors performed their own utility work, including the moving of boxes, the 1 Law of March 30, 1927, ch. 453, § 172 [1927] N. Y. Laws; Law of April 28, 1930, ch. 868, § 172 [1930] N. Y. Laws (which carried for- _ ward, without change, the prohibition against night work by females). oo on women oll — July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. 151 trucking away of ware and the positioning of skids and boxes adjacent to the inspection area. They received a higher rate of pay than the day and afternoon inspectors and the same rate paid to male night inspectors, if and when they performed all the work ordinarily required of a male night inspector. After World War II, Corning returned to the prior practice of employing only males in the steady third shift inspection jobs. In 1944, the American Flint Glass Workers Union of North America negotiated a collective bargaining agree- ment covering many production and maintenance employees of the defendant’s plants located in Corning, New York. This contract covered the inspectors employed at A Factory, B & C Factory, and the Pressware plants, and it provided for a steady night shift wage differential as a premium for night work. This differential was applicable to inspectors as well as most other hourly employees of the defendant. In addition to the steady night shift wage differential, this contract continued in effect the existing differential in base wage rate between the steady night shift inspectors and the rotating day and afternoon shift inspectors. Be- tween the years 1944 and 1968, all collective bargaining agreements entered into by the defendant with the union have maintained similar wage differential structures with minor variations caused by negotiation of percentage rather than flat rate increases. In 1953, New York State law was amended to provide, for the first time, that females over twenty-one years of 152 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. age could work after midnight in factories operating multiple shifts, where the Industrial Commissioner found that satisfactory conditions exist and granted his approv- al? Similar provisions of the law have remained in effect during all times pertinent in this lawsuit.’ There is no evidence offered by either side that the In- dustrial Commissioner ever granted permission to the defendant to employ females on the steady night shift prior to June 1, 1966. From the fact that women actually worked the night shift inspection jobs after June 1, 1966, the court infers that the defendant obtained the necessary permission from the Industrial Commissioner. Further, the defend- ant has failed to offer any explanation of what, if any, efforts were made to obtain this permission at an earlier date. MERGER OF RATE SCHEDULES Prior to June 11, 1964, the defendant maintained sepa- rate “male” and “female” rate schedules. Under these separate rate schedules, male inspectors working the steady night shift were paid a higher hourly base rate than the rotating day and afternoon female inspectors who were in the same job category, performing work rated substantial- ly equal by defendant’s own job evaluation plans. 2 Law of April 13, 1953, ch. 708, § 172 [1953] N. Y. Laws (which amended section 172 to allow, for the first time, night work for females upon approval by the Industrial Commissioner). 3 During the period pertinent in this lawsuit, New York Labor Law, Section 173(3) (a) (1), effective October 1, 1963, carried forward the effect of the 1953 amendment allowing night work by females after the ired approval. N. Y. Labor Law § 173(3)(a)(1) (McKinney 1965). ~ — July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. 153 “Effective June 11, 1964, the defendant merged these separate schedules into one revised rate schedule’ This merger, however, preserved the differential in base rate between the men and the women inspectors on all three shifts. This difference was preserved by placing the women into a lower labor grade on the rev vised rate schedule with a lower rate of pay. A comparison of the separate schedules and the single revised schedule illustrates how the difference was main- tained. oe The female rate schedule dated November 19, 1962 indicates that a Class C female inspector was in group 3 | (1.e., the wage group of female employees whose jobs were | evaluated between 215 and 235) and was paid $1.89 to $1.97. On the merged rate schedule, Class €. female - inspectors were classified as “new group” 1, and their rate of pay was $1.9714. The male rate schedule dated November 19, 1962 indicates that a Class C male inspector, working nights, was classxi- fied in wage group 2 (i.e., that group of male employees whose jobs were evaluated between 165 and 235) and was __ paid $1.99 to’ $2.1314. On the merged rate schedule, the former male rates were maintained by placing the Class ( male inspector in “new group” 5, with rate range of $2.011% to $2.1314. The Class B inspectors and the General TV inspectors, male and female, were affected similarly by the merger of rate schedules. Therefore, the merger continued the historical difference in base hourly rates of the men and women inspectors 154 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. working the three shifts. In the case of Class C and TV in- spectors, the base rate differential between men and women inspectors was 16¢ an hour. For Class B and General TV inspectors, the hourly differential was 18¢. In the years after June 11, 1964, the hourly base rate differential was gradually increased. SENIORITY LISTS Before June 1, 1966, defendant had maintained separate “male” and “female” seniority lists. In effect, these sepa- rate lists made it impossible for a female inspector to trans- fer into a steady night-time traditionally male inspection job. . Effective July, 1965, the Civil Rights Act mandated equal employment opportunities without regard to an employee’s sex.* On May 31, 1966, the defendant abandoned its separate seniority lists, thus affording female inspectors an opportunity to take higher paid night shift inspection jobs as they become available. After June 1, 1966, a num- ber of female employees availed themselves of the Oppor- - tunity to use seniority to take the higher paying night shift inspection jobs. Of course, they also received the Corning-wide night-time differential provided by the col- lective bargaining agreement. Also since June, 1966, some men inspectors have taken day and afternoon inspection jobs with the reduced base hourly wage rate. This abandon- ment of the separate seniority lists was accomplished by mutual agreement between the union and defendant. 4 Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. A. § 2000 e-2 (1970) (statute effec- tive one year after July 2, 1964). — ———— 155 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. EQUALITY OF WORK— JOB EVALUATION PLANS: ADMISSIBILITY AND ANALYSIS In attempting to meet its burden of proving the equality of the disputed inspection jobs on all three shifts, the plaintiff has relied heavily on two job evaluation studies conducted by the defendant. These evaluation studies rate the disputed work equal on all three shifts. In a pretrial statement analyzing the plaintiff’s proposed exhibits and giving reasons for objections, which the court required the defendant to submit, no objection was made to Exhibits 34 to 41, and Exhibits 42 to 46 were objected to only on the grounds of relevancy and materiality. Dur- ing the trial, the defendant objected only on the grounds of relevancy and materiality to the admission of plaintiff's Exhibits 34 to 46. In its post-trial memorandum, defendant for the first time raises additional objections to these ex- hibits, claiming that the records are hearsay, that they are not business records kept in the regular course of business, and that a proper foundation was not laid for their admis- sibility. Since these grounds were not asserted definitely during the trial, the defendant has waived its right to object on these grounds. 2B Barron & Holtzhoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1021, at pp. 309-319 (C. A. Wright rev. 1961). If the defendant’s objection had been made clear at the time of trial, the plaintiff would have had an oppor- tunity to clear up any deficiency which was present in the offer. Furthermore, the purpose of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1732, the Federal Business Records Act, 156 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. “is to permit the introduction into evidence of reports in substitution for the actual testimony in court of the persons making the reports.” United States v. New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, 304 F. 2d 792 (2d Cir. 1962). “The statute was designed to bring the realities of business and professional practice into court in usable form .. .” Korte v. New York, N. H. € H. R. R., 191 F. 2d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 1951). The records admitted were made and kept in the regular course of business of the defendant by trained observers following guidelines published by the defendant after a | careful study had been made of the problems involved in evaluating the jobs. The job descriptions and evaluations © were regularly used by the defendant in the course of its business and they were all prepared before the present litigation began. Considering the purpose of the Federal Business Records Act, the reliability of these records was well established. Thus, defendant’s objections to the admission of these exhibits is overruled. It is necessary for the court to examine these studies to determine if the plaintiff has met its burden of proving equality of work. The Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Job Evaluation Plan [hereinafter referred to as the SJ&H Plan] was installed in 1946 and, according to the defendant, remained in effect until January 20, 1969. This evaluation plan measured skill, responsibility, and working conditions - evaluating the work performed in different job classifi- cations. The defendant claims it was deficient since it did not take into account the amount of effort required in the sean taeie —— aa - 157 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. performance of the jobs, or the time of the day the work was performed. Farther, defendant claims that the SJ&H Plan was never used to set wage rates because all base wage rates, includ- ing the separate male and female wage curves and the merged base rates, were the result of negotiation between the company and the union. In sum, the defendant con- tends, a higher base rate was negotiated for the male in- spectors on the steady night shift, in spite of the fact that the SJ&H Plan evaluated the work done under the same inspection classification equal on all three shifts. The court is in accord with defendant’s position that plaintiff cannot satisfy its burden of proof by relying on the descriptions used and the evaluation points determined in the SJ&H Plan. The Equal Pay Act requires that, for jobs to be equal, their performance must require “equal skill, effort, and responsibility,” and must be performed “ander similar working conditions, . . .” The SJ&H Plan | did not measure effort. Therefore, the descriptions and evaluations prepared under this plan are insufficient alone to satisfy plaintiff’s burden of proving the equality of the work. The plaintiff also relies upon the Corning Glass Works Job Evaluation Plan [hereinafter referred to as CGW Plan], and the descriptions of the jobs made under this plan to satisfy its burden of proof. The CGW Plan was developed over the years commenc- ing in 1957. The CGW Evaluation Manual states that the purpose of the plan was “to establish equitable differences in pay between jobs based on job requirements,” and further explains that “through the use of this system, equitable - July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. 158 relationships will be established in terms of job aan points. When these points are applied to local curves, they will establish the rate range for any job at that location.” The CGW Plan measured e skill, responsibility, and working conditions. Lik SJ&H Plan, the CGW Plan does not take into accouym time of day a particular job is performed. The CGW Plan was first installed to establish wag a branch plant in 1960 and, since that time, it has} ‘installed at 24 branch plants. There was discussiof tween the company and the union in 1962 concernil use at Corning. According to the defendant, this ofi use the plan in Corning was rejected by the uni 1962 and on five subsequent occasions. The reason ) the rejection by the union are unknown to the court. N theless, in January, 1969, Corning and the union af that the CGW Plan would be the official job evalf plan at Corning, with rates effective November, 1$ Although the plan was not in effect until the latter 1968, the Industrial Engineering Department at Co prepared descriptions of several of the jobs in qu in this lawsuit and evaluated each of them in aceorg with the CGW Plan during 1963 and early 1964. this plan, the work in [most of] the job classificf disputed in this lawsuit was evaluated as equal & three shifts. Defendant argues that plaintiff's use of the CGW§ evaluation points and job descriptions also fails to s 7 plaintiff’s burden of proof. It is defendant’s claing the job descriptions under this plan describe wh inspector is supposed to do, but do not actually de 159 July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. the work he actually performs. Further, defendant argues that the CGW description and evaluation points are ir- relevant prior to January, 1969 when the plan went into ffect. The testimony during the trial and the procedures set forth in the CGW “Guide for Describing And Evaluating” indicate that the first step in the evaluation procedure is an on-the-job observation of the work actually being performed in a certain job classification. Job analysts, logether with the employees actually performing the work and their superiors, collaborate in describing the work tually performed. Once this job description is finally lrafted, it serves as the basis for job evaluation. Under this plan, plant supervisors are responsible to report to the job analysts any significant changes in the work actually performed which might affect the originally lrafted job description. Obviously, this requirement in- ures that job descriptions and the resulting job evalua- ions will be kept as current as possible and reflect the york that is actually being done within a job classification. The court notes that no CGW job description of TV in- pectors in Pressware was admitted in evidence. Further. he product line in Pressware changed in late 1968 resulting n a change in the CGW job descriptions that had been wrepared for this plant (i.e., General TV Inspector). Mr. “dward Noble, Manager of Job Evaluation at Corning. estified that the CGW description had been revised, but hat this particular job still required equal work on all hree shifts. The defendant also argues that plaintiff may not rely on he CGW job descriptions to show that the jobs in question 160 ’ July 10, 1970, Opinion of the District Court. are equal under the Act, since the descriptions do not reflect [| the fact that some male inspectors on the night shift do’ | their own utility work, while some female inspectors on | the rotating day and afternoon shifts are assisted by utility workers. Utility workers move inspected material off the lehr, clean up around the inspection stations, pack | ware and move it from the inspection area. They are re- | quired to exert more manual effort than the inspec [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0298%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.