oversight

Alleged Discrimination in Job Opportunities

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-09-28.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

p   14

                     COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF TIlE UNiTED S rATES
                                 WASHINGTON. D.C. ifle




         P#l01695                          September 28, 1971

                                                 $4l L-,.',;1iNT AVAILASI
         -Mr. run B. Bray, Jr,, Staff Director
         Subcoirmnittee on Manpower and Civil Service
         Coonlittee on Post Office and Civil Service
         House of Representatives
         Dear Mr. Bray:
              The General Accounting Office has inquired into the matters
         contained in letters from employees of the Ililitary Ocean Terminal-
         at Bayonne, New Jersey (IOTBY) to Chairman Henderson and subsequently
         forwarded to us by you for consideration during our audit of compara-
         tive container stuffing costs at !IOTBY,
              The employee's complaint in the letter of February 28, 1971,
         lnvolvedfalleged discrimination for job opportunltleijagainst himself
         and other former Department of the Ilavy employees byfthe Department
         of the Anmy when Navy employees and functions were Transferred to
         the Army ir, 1967. The complaint, therefore, had no connection with
         our audit of comparative container stuffing costs.
               The letter of larch 30, 1971, indicated that the Department of
         Defense and the Department of the Anmy where systematically engaging
         lin an unwarranted reduction of civil service employees at N0TBY by
         contractoiq out for functions perfornied by civil service personnel
         at the facility. Our inquiry disclosed that an Eastern Area, 1,ilitary
         Traffic Maragement and Terminal Service (EAMTIYS) task force study
         (released for official use only in February 1971), recormended that
         MOTlY be reduced to the station of an outport activity, a iiqove that
         could result in 1,000 employees being declared excess to operational
         requirements. However, we were infonned that the above study seas
         supersed( by a similar study conducted on a national basis by Head-
         quarters, I1TITS, and released in ;iarcn 1971. This later study recom-
         mended that a policy of continued retention of military ocean tenr-
         1nals be supported.
              Certain aspects of the reduction in the civil service workforce
         at MOTBY will we covered in our reports to the SubcorrudttLe on the
         comparative costs of container loading as well as of the activities
associated with the GTS Vessel Admiral Callagha6. This specific
complaint, however, had no direct connection with the audit of
comparative labor costs.
     If you wish additional information or additional work in
connection with the matter contained in the letters, please let
us know.
                                    Sincerely yours,



                                   Smith Blair            "tiv
                                   Office of Legislative LiAlson

                                                               r   .rb   B      t     > A       2




                                       iS tj1:'';   .   '.It       rxili,.s,,xi.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f