Mr. Jenner. And it records the date of termination of Oswald's employment?
Mr. Stovall. Right.
Mr. Jenner. The sixth day of April 1963?
Mr. Stovall. He was given notice the latter part of March, and our company's procedure is to give a fellow a week or 10 days notice prior to the termination.
Mr. Jenner. Was his termination prospectively or otherwise discussed with you prior to it?
Mr. Stovall. Oh, probably it was—I would not say for sure whether it was or wasn't. I'm pretty much of a dog around there when things don't go right I'm the one that has to do all the yelling, and if a guy doesn't produce, I say, "Let's do something," and from this basis I feel the responsibility to say that I probably had something to do with this termination, not as an individual, but only on his performance as far as the work standards were concerned.
Mr. Jenner. What was this man's skill to the extent that you recall, in these areas in which you sought to train him?
Mr. Stovall. He had no skill. He had no training whatsoever. You see, we employed him only as a trainee and I think we probably started him at $1.25 or $1.35, or something like that, and automatically we give a youngster a 10- or 15-cent raise quarterly, but within 6 months, if they have shown no aptitude, we give up on them and have a parting of the ways.
Mr. Jenner. And that is what happened here?
Mr. Stovall. Yes; because we give them a raise doesn't mean that the person is competent, it means that it is just a system of employment we have when we start someone on minimum, or generally a 90-day basis, and we give them a nickel or dime, and then within a maximum of 6 months, if they have shown no aptitude, we just have to terminate them.