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
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)