So I decided to leave Columbia. To be vested at Columbia Gas you had to have 10 years of service, but you had to be 45 years of age. I don't know what was so magic about 45. I asked this many times, and I never got a suitable answer from them. So I was not vested, simply because I wasn't 45 years of age, although I had almost 24 years of service. So I left, not being vested. What also annoyed me and I think this is an important point to bring out, when I left Columbia I was 1 month short of being 41 years old, so I had over 4 years to go before I was 45. When they know that you are not vested, they hold this over your head because they know the chances are you are not going to leave, that you really need this pension. To add insult to injury, while I was leaving I heard that to lure the people into staying at Columbia until they left New York, they would give them 4 months' severance pay, and to those people who had over 10 years of service but were not 45, they would give them a special annuity. But it was done very discriminatorily and very hushhush. Why, I don't know, because there was never anything in writing on it. I have never seen anything in writing on it. When Columbia left New York, the people that did stay were sent a special letter telling them that when they became 65, they should notify Columbia Gas and that they would be given this special annuity. Now, here is a case where they broke the rules to lure people to stay until they left New York City, which, again, I don't think is fair. I realize that I can be vested in another company. I am still young enough to do that. But I have lost 24 years of my life, which I cannot accrue to another pension, which is an awful lot of years to put in and lose. The company I am presently employed at-I just have to be there 10 years. There is no age restriction. The CHAIRMAN. This is the disturbing part of that Columbia plan. It is years of service and reaching a certain age. Here you had only 10 years required and age 45, and you had 231⁄2 years but hadn't reached 45. Mr. Russ. I think it is age discrimination, really. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is more than that. I think there is the leverage to hold a man in. Mr. Russ. That is right. I was annoyed that they didn't make the offer to me to go to Wilmington, Del. I had originally considered going. But they didn't make me the offer to go to Wilmington, Del., until after I informed them I was leaving. Then they made me the offer with $2,000 more. But, as I said, I had already committed myself, and I felt that at least this way I could stay where I was. The CHAIRMAN. Your present employment is with American Standard? Mr. Russ. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And this plan has years of service, but doesn't have the age requirement? Mr. Russ. That is right. I might add that the pension at Columbia Gas was noncontributory, but every time you came up for a review for wages this was always considered part of the package. Since the pension was noncontributory, this was part of your second wage, so to speak. They considered this very strongly. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Russ, what is your situation? Mrs. Russ. I also was employed at Columbia Gas, starting in September 1947 and leaving, of my own accord, in March 1964. I left there with 17 years of service, and I also do not have any pension rights. I left because we were going to adopt children. I feel there was age discrimination. I was only 34 years old at the time I decided to leave. Mr. Russ. Combined, we have over 40 years of service. And neither of us has anything to show for it, which is very unfair because many people came in long after we did, and I trained them on the job. On the day when they left New York City, these people who were 45 got a vested pension, and I didn't. The CHAIRMAN. When do they get paid? Mr. Russ. When they become 65. I asked them once why the age 45 was required or put on as a restriction, because there are so few people in the New York office who have over 20 years of service but are not age 45. I don't think there were even 10. I think the cost probably would have been negligible to cover these people. But they shrugged it off. I never got an answer. The CHAIRMAN. How about severance pay? Did you lose out on that, too? Mr. Russ. I lost out on that because I did not stay until the day Columbia Gas left New York. The CHAIRMAN. That is a traditional requirement for severance pay, to stay until the doors are actually closed? Mr. Russ. Yes. And I left a year before they left New York. I wrote and asked for the annuity once I heard about it, this special annuity that they were giving people to keep them staying there. I asked for it. I wrote a letter to the chairman of the board, whom I knew personally. I got a very cold reply back from the vice president of employee benefits, saying that since I didn't stay until the very end that I wasn't eligible. But the important part that I want to stress is that I left Columbia Gas strictly because they left New York. If they had stayed in New York, I never would have left, because I had a very nice job. I would have gotten a good pension. I was set. But for personal reasons I decided not to go with them, and I lost everything only because I wasn't 45. Had they stayed, I had no reason at all to leave. The CHAIRMAN. Here is another situation where we wrote, having learned of your experience, to Columbia Gás System Service Corp., now at Wilmington, inviting them to come here and make a statement or testify. They have written a letter that says that they would not be testifying. They did want to reserve the right to respond in writing, and they will submit a statement. These also will appear, and then we will await their statement. (Copies of the letters referred to follow :) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE OF LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Mr. R. TAYLOR CLOUD, Director, Employees Benefits, Columbia Gas System Service Corp., Wilmington, Del. DEAR MR. CLOUD: On March 1, 1971, by Senate Resolution 35, the U.S. Senate ordered the Senate Subcommittee on Labor to conduct a study of the private pension system in the United States, with special emphasis upon the need for protection of employees covered by these funds. As you were advised on July 13, 1971, by a staff member of the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Mr. Bernard N. Russ of Wantagh, New York, had informed the Subcommittee of alleged hardship resulting from inability to qualify for a pension under your pension plan. These were discussed with you in order to ascertain appropriate explanation in response to the difficulties recited. The complainant has been invited to testify before the Subcommittee on Labor on or about July 27, 1971, on hearings to be held pursuant to the Senate study of private pension plans. It will be for the purpose of presenting the problem alleged. Accordingly, the Subcommittee on Labor similarly invites your organization to designate a representative to appear to testify with respect to your pension plan benefits relating to Mr. Russ, and matters alleged by the complainant. It would be appreciated if you would indicate expeditiously whether you will appear. In the interim, please forward a copy of the pension plan and such other publications which you issue relating thereto. Your assistance is appreciated. Sincerely, MARIO T. NOTO, Special Counsel, Subcommittee on Labor. Mr. MARIO T. NOTO, COLUMBIA GAS SYSTEM SERVICE CORP., Special Counsel, Subcommittee on Labor, DEAR MR. NOTO: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the official text of the Retirement Income Plan for Columbia Gas System Companies as amended to include Plan changes effective January 1, 1971. We are in the process of revising our benefit booklets and final drafts reflecting the current Plan are not yet available; however, I am including a copy of the booklet describing the Plan as it existed prior to the January 1, 1971 changes. I appreciate your invitation to appear at the Subcommittee hearings beginning on or about July 27, 1971. My schedule precludes my being able to attend the hearings, but I would like to reserve the right to respond in writing. Yours very truly, R. TAYLOR CLOUD. The CHAIRMAN. We certainly thank you for being with us and giving us the benefit of your testimony. Mr. John Gojmerac and Joseph Wojnarowski are our next witnesses. We are very glad to have you both with us and we thank you for appearing. Both of you gentlemen are from Johnstown, Pa? Mr. GOJMERAC. Right. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gojmerac, do you want to state your experience to the committee? STATEMENT OF JOHN GOJMERAC AND JOSEPH WOJNAROWSKI FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HAWS REFRACTORIES CO., JOHNSTOWN, PA. Mr. GOJMERAC. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I am John Gojmerac of Johnstown. I have worked in the Haws Refractory from 1929. That would be a little over 42 years to this date. We have a pension plan down there that was functioning normally up until sometime in June, wasn't it, last year? Mr. WOJNAROWSKI. Yes. Mr. GOJMERAC. They were making payments of $95, and some were less, according to the former contracts. All of a sudden at the middle of the year they called us up to the office and said they would have to cut the pensions down, that the funds were going down low because they shut down two plants, I believe. One was at Lewistown and one was at Johnstown. They had about 13 members with age plus service on pension. It was in January of this year when some of the older pensioners came to us with letters that they received from the bank in Johnstown, which said, "We are sorry that we cannot send your checks this month as the company has not forwarded any funds," and I think they said the money was down to around $200. We have not heard a word of the fund between the three trustees up until this year that there was no money in the fund. So that leaves us with the plant that was shut down with about 20 men that would be eligible for pension that cannot draw a penny, 20 out of about 33. Besides, we have lost our vacations. We cannot get them until the next day we would work and the last word we had they closed up altogether last Friday at the last plant they had. The CHAIRMAN. When did you go to work at the Haws Refractories? Mr. GOJMERAC. In 1929. The CHAIRMAN. You had an unbroken employment there until 1969 ? Mr. GOJMERAC. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. That is 4011⁄2 years. Mr. GOJMERAC. Plus the 2 years I was carried on the seniority list, you know, after being laid off. Then I would have to renew my service with a registered letter after 6 months. The CHAIRMAN. What did you consider your pension rights were while you were working there? What did you expect after you reached the retirement age? Mr. GOJMERAC. I am not just speaking for my condition because I was the president of the local. I am talking about the rest too. But as far as I am concerned, when they shut down the first plant I was eligible to go on age plus service if I would have gone. But we were not given an option because I, being one of the three oldest-probably the oldest that was working then, or second oldest, was kept on to demolish the plant and move the equipment down to the other plant. Then they put us on a roster and gave us service of 7 years in the new plant. Our service covered for pension and vacation but we were just like new men down at the new plant. The CHAIRMAN. How many years did you think you had to work there for this company to get a pension? Mr. GOJMERAC. Well, the contract calls for it at 65. Where it is 60, I believe it is 60 if the place is shut down. The CHAIRMAN. Aside from a plant shut down, how many years did you have to work for this company to get a pension? Mr. GOJMERAC. Fifteen years and it was prorated up to 25 for a full pension. The CHAIRMAN. But you got pension rights after 15 years with the company? Mr. GOJMERAC. That is right. As far as shutting down, it was 55 years plus 20 years service, I believe, somewhere around there. I would have right now a combination of about 102 years age and service at that rate. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, how about men older than yourself? Are they collecting pensions? Mr. GOJMERAC. They stopped everything. The CHAIRMAN. How about men that retired while you were working there? Did they collect pensions for any period of time? Mr. GOJMERAC. Yes, they were keeping the pensions up until I would say around June or July 1970 sometime. Then they sent them letters. They called a committee together and they cut the pension down to half in order to make it last because the funds were running down. The CHAIRMAN. How much was the pension? How much a month? Mr. GOJMERAC. Well, some were $95 on the latest plant at that time. They were cut down to half, $47.50. Some were on at $60 from a good while back yet, years back. The top pension then, I believe. was $60. They were cut down to $30 or $28 and some cents. Then as of this year in January, after we found out what happened we called a meeting with the company representative and the union and we went up there. We found out also that they did not pay one man of the other plant that they shut down, and they had about 30 men eligible for age plus service pensions for a year already before that. The CHAIRMAN. The company stopped business altogether last week I understand. Mr. GOJMERAC. One of the oldest employees we have, who is sort of a boss of the machine shop, told me that when I was leaving. I just ran into him. It was new to me to see him walking around on a workday. He told me that they had not even paid him last Friday, which was a regular payday. The CHAIRMAN. How many plants does this company have? Mr. GOJMERAC. I think we had three under this plan. The Kittanning plant was under this payroll: Canonsburg was one; Lewistown No. 7 yard, and No. 6 yard. Four plants were under this plan. The CHAIRMAN. Are they all closed? Mr. GOJMERAC. Right as of now they are. The CHAIRMAN. What did you do at these plants? Mr. GOJMERAC. I? The CHAIRMAN. What was the work of the refractory? Mr. GOJMERAC. They poured brick and things for electrical fixtures. I do not know what you call them. Anyhow, they poured them instead of casting them or pressing them out on a machine. That is the work they did at Seaboard. At Lewistown, they made silica for the |