action in the United States District Court for the district where such records are kept. If the Commission or the court, as the case may be, finds that the application of the regulation or order to the employer, employment agency, or labor organization in question would impose an undue hardship, the Commission or the court, as the case may be, may grant appropriate relief. If any person required to comply with the provisions of this subsection fails or refuses to do so, the United States District Court for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application of the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency or political subdivision, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply. TITLE 29, CHAPTER XIV, CODE OF § 1602.7 Requirement for filing of report. On or before March 31, 1967, and annually thereafter, every employer subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which meets the 100-employee test set forth in Section 701(b) thereof shall file with the Commission or its delegate executed copies of Standard Form 100, as revised (otherwise known as "Employer Information Report EEO-1") in conformity with the directions set forth in the form and accompanying instructions. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1602.14, every such employer shall retain at all times at each reporting unit, or at company or divisional headquarters, a copy of the most recent report filed for each such unit and shall make the same available if requested by an officer, agent or employee of the Commission under the authority of section 710(a) of Title VII. Appropriate copies of Standard Form 100 in blank will be supplied to every employer known to the Commission to be subject to the reporting requirements, but it is the responsibility of all such employers to obtain necessary supplies of same prior to the filing date from the Joint Reporting Committee. § 1602.8 Penalty for making of willfully false statements on report. The making of willfully false statements on Report EEO-1 is a violation of the United States Code, Title 18, section 1001, and is punishable by fine or imprisonment as set forth therein. § 1602.9 Commission's remedy for employer's failure to file report. Any employer failing or refusing to file Report EEO-1 when required to do so may be compelled to file by order of a U.S. District Court, upon application of the Commission. §1602.10 Employer's exemption from reporting require ments. If an employer is engaged in activities for which the reporting unit criteria described in section 4(c) of the instructions are not readily adaptable, special reporting procedures may be required. In such case, the employer should so advise by submitting to the Commission or its delegate a specific proposal for an alternative reporting system prior to the date on which the report is due. If it is claimed the preparation or filing of the report would create undue hardship, the employer may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in this part. § 1602.11 Additional reporting requirements. The Commission reserves the right to require reports other than that designated as the Employer Information Report EEO-1, about the employment practices of individual employers or groups of employers whenever, in its judgment, special or supplemental reports are necessary to accomplish the purposes of Title VII. Any system for the requirement of such reports will be established in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c) of Title VII and as otherwise prescribed by law. Subpart C-Recordkeeping by Employers § 1602.12 Records to be made or kept. The Commission has not adopted any requirement, generally applicable to employers, that records be made or kept. It reserves the right to impose recordkeeping requirements upon individual employers or groups of employers subject to its jurisdictions whenever, in its judgment, such records (a) are necessary for the effective operation of the EEO-1 reporting system or of any special or supplemental reporting system as described above; or (b) are further required to accomplish the purposes of Title VII. Such recordkeeping requirements will be adopted in accordance with the procedures referred to in section 709(c), and as otherwise prescribed by law. § 1602.13 Records as to racial or ethnic identity of employees. Employers may acquire the information necessary for completion of Report EEO-1 either by visual surveys of the work force, or at their option, by the maintenance of post-employment records as to the identity of employees where the same is permitted by State law. In the latter case, however, the Commission recommends the maintenance of a permanent record as to the racial or ethnic identity of an individual for purpose of completing the report form only where the employer keeps such records separately from the employee's basic personnel form or other records available to those responsible for personnel decisions, e.g., as part of an automatic data processing system in the payroll department. § 1602.14 Preservation of records made or kept. (a) Unless the employer is subject to a State or local fair employment practice law or regulation governing the preservation of records and containing requirements inconsistent with those stated in this part, any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of 6 months from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of 6 months from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Attorney General, against an employer under Title VII, the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term "personnel records relevant to the charge," for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the charging party and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the charging party; and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the charging party applied and was rejected. The date of "final disposition of the charge or the action" means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which a charging party may bring an action in a U.S. District Court or, where an action is brought against an employer either by a charging party or by the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation is terminated. (b) The requirements of this section shall not apply to application forms and other pre-employment records of applicants for positions known to applicants to be of a temporary or seasonal nature. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Watkins. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Weithoner will be the respondent. STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. WEITHONER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY LEON WATKINS, DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS Mr. WEITHONER. I am Charles Weithoner, and I will do the statement. Mrs. COLLINS. All right. Mr. WEITHONER. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I am Charles E. Weithoner, FAA's Associate Administrator for Human Resource Management. With me today is Leon Watkins, Director of Civil Rights for the FAA. We are pleased to appear before the subcommittees today to briefly describe for you the FAA's former role in contract compliance and our current posture of minority and female employment within the agency. Until 1978, the FAA's Office of Civil Rights was responsible for conducting compliance review of air carriers which had Government contracts or subcontracts. This function was performed pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Department of Labor to the Department of Transportation. This contract compliance function was exercised over air carriers and other firms engaged in air transportation which contracted with the Federal Government, regardless of which Federal agency was the contracting agency. As I noted, our performance of this function ended in October 1978. This was as the result of a government reorganization which took effect then. Significantly, at that time, all records of compliance reviews and other actions associated with this process were transferred to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor. During the time we exercised oversight responsibility in the contract compliance area, our program was conducted in accordance with OFCCP procedures and regulations. OFCCP was routinely advised of our activities, and periodic audits were conducted of our reviews by DOT and OFCCP personnel, who sometimes accompanied FAA reviewers to airline facilities. Since we have not had responsibility in this area since 1978, we are unable to provide any current analysis with respect to the subcommittees' interest in employment of blacks and other minorities and females within the aviation industry at-large. I can say, however, based on our prior involvement in this area, that the OFCCP regulations appeared to have been having the desired effect of increasing the numbers of minorities and women in most job categories. We continue to have responsibility within the FAA for minority and female employment, and we have continued to strive toward achieving greater representation of persons within these categories in our work force. On the whole, I believe we have made steady progress in this area. Five years ago, 8.5 percent of our controllers were minorities. Today, that figure has increased to 9.2 percent. Our electronic tech nician work force has increased from 14.9 percent minorities to 15.9 percent. In engineering, minority representation in the FAA has jumped from 12.3 percent to 16.3 percent. And we have increased minority employment in our aviation safety inspector work force from 6.7 percent to 7.5 percent. We also have issued a number of grants to minority institutions for purchase of equipment, construction and modification of buildings in support of airway science programs. In the past two fiscal years, we have issued grants totaling $5.094 million to the following minority institutions: Tennessee State University, Texas Southern University, Florida Memorial College, California State University at Los Angeles, and Elizabeth City State University. That completes my prepared statement. We would be pleased to respond to questions you may have at this time. Mr. FRANK [presiding]. Mr. McCandless, do you want to begin? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Gentlemen, we have been at it now for a while, and you have all, if I remember correctly, been in the audience at one time or another. I would ask you, in whatever order you wish, to respond, if you would comment on what it is that the committee has been privileged to hear from various sources today relative to the subject in question and the reason for this hearing. Mr. TROY. We have heard quite a few things. Mr. MCCANDLESS. I don't know what the pecking order is at the table, so you fellows will have to decide that. Mr. COOPER. I would like to discuss a couple of things. As far as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs goes, during the period from 1982 to the present we have conducted a total of 79 compliance reviews involving the airline industry. During the year of 1986, to date, we have conducted a total of 19 compliance reviews involving airline carriers. I think it might be interesting to go down the list and give you some idea as to what we have been coming up with. In fiscal year 1986, as I indicated earlier, we conducted a total of 19 compliance reviews covering a total of 33,143 employees. That is an average size of 1,744. In terms of results of the compliance reviews, six conciliation agreements came out of them, eight letters of commitment, and 56 complaints of discrimination resolved during the period of the review process itself. In terms of violations, we found that a total of 33 dealt with sexrelated issues, 32 with race, 4 with religion, 12 with national origin, 5 handicapped, and 5 veteran status. In terms of the types of discrimination issues, 13 violations dealt with recruitment, 1 with hiring, 1 with placement, and selection testing was 1. In terms of written affirmative action plan, violations found that some involved utilization analysis, 7; work force analysis, 4; goals establishment, 7; and other violations numbered 8. That will give you a rough idea as to what we found in 1986. I think it is important to point out here that we, in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, consider the issue of discrimination to be very important. We believe in enforcing the law as it currently stands, and is outlined in our regulations. We have been doing a number of things within the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to address those problems. Right now we are in the middle of developing a training program for our people in the area of systemic discrimination. We consider it to be important to educate our people in identifying discrimination in facilities around the country We expect to implement the training program in the next 3 months. It will deal basically with two theories of systemic discrimination-disparate treatment and adverse impact. We will spend a great deal of time teaching our people about evidence associated with systemic discrimination such as comparative evidence, direct evidence, and statistical evidence. We are also putting together some directives that will give our people more guidance in the areas of discrimination. In fact, we have already put out some directives. A number of our directives that will go toward clarifying our regulations in the area of discrimination. We are doing a number of things within the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, including the whole outreach effort. We believe that people-contractors, constituency groups, and Federal agencies must begin to talk to one another, and develop open lines of communication. We still do our job; that is the bottom line. But we do believe that people must begin to talk. It is one of the big initiatives on our part. We are in the process now of working with liaison groups. I overheard one of the other witnesses talking about the difficulties in terms of communicating and talking with other people in the contracting community. I have been traveling around the country talking to Federal contractors, CEO's, and constituency groups about the problems that exist, and telling them where we want to go and getting their input. We have been very successful in the area of liaison groups. During February 26 to 28, 1987, we will sponsor a National Conference on Affirmative Action. The conference will bring together representatives from the private sector, government, academia, and local, State and national organizations to meet and discuss the challenges to equal employment opportunity that the protected classes will face over the next decades. The conference is being held at the Crystal City Marriott in Arlington, VA, and will be open to all persons interested in exploring issues critical to making the goal of equal employment opportunity a reality. Mr. MCCANDLESS. Mr. Cooper, my time is almost up. I want to share one other thought with you before the bell rings. Our airline representatives testified that they do have a rather elaborate recruiting process, and they went into some of the details which you listened to. Other witnesses have said there are people out there that are qualified, but they are discriminated against, and therefore it is not necessarily a fact that these people are being processed. In your traveling around and in your discussions and in our observations and your meetings, what is your reaction to what appears to be some kind of a gap there between the two? Mr. COOPER. The only thing I can say is, nobody has brought it to my attention. We will enforce the law if the information comes to our attention. 70-651 - 87 - 8 |