291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940. So, too, it has been extended to additional types of control. Originally, such regulation was directed principally to rates and charges exacted from the public and to services rendered to patrons and consumers. It has been expanded to include such matters as safety requirements, hours of labor and similar subjects. The Supreme Court has gone as far as to sustain a statute regulating minimum wages paid to employees in any business affecting interstate commerce, irrespective of whether it is in the category of a public calling. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 117, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609. The regulatory power extends not only to management but to employees as well. Thus, it was stated in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 364, 37 S.Ct. 298, 308, 61 L.Ed. 755:

"When one enters into interstate commerce one enters into a service in which the public has an interest and subjects one's self to its behests. And this is no limitation of liberty; It is the consequence of liberty exercised, the obligation of his undertaking, and constrains no more than any contract constrains. The obligation of a contract is the law under which it is made and submission to regulation is the condition which attaches to one who enters into or accepts employment in a business in which the public has an interest".

The decision in Wilson v. New, supra, related to a situation very similar to that presented in the instant case. In March, 1916 the country was confronted with a nation-wide railroad strike, as it was in this instance. It originated in a controversy concerning hours of work and wages of railroad employees. The Congress solved the problem by passing a statute fixing an eight-hour standard work day on all railroads and providing that compensation of their employees should not be reduced below the then standard day's wage, pending an investigation by a Presidential Commission. The constitutionality of this statute was challenged in the same manner as is be

The Su

ing done in the case at bar. preme Court upheld the validity of the Act as within the regulatory power of Congress.

[16] Counsel for the plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the two statutes in that the 1916 Act involved in the Wilson case was a legislative decision as to hours and wages, whereas in the Act here involved, the Congress delegated to a board the power to make the determination. It requires no argument, however, to demonstrate that Congress has the authority to delegate its legislative power in this respect to administrative agencies. It has done so in respect to various fields, such as carriers, to the Interstate Commerce Commission; electric power, to the Federal Power Commission; radio and television to the Federal Communications Commission, and the like.

The suggestion was made during the oral arguments that compulsory arbitration was a far reaching innovation. This contention is hardly accurate. The Railway Labor Act, by the creation of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and the powers conferred on it, in fact, provided for compulsory arbitration of minor disputes between carriers and la bor organizations as far back as 1926, 45 U.S.Code, § 153. Countless proceedings of this nature have been conducted under it over the years.

[17] In their reply arguments, coun sel for the plaintiffs with commendable candor finally conceded that Congres had the power to enact legislation of the type involved here, and were relegated to the position that the enabling Act was vulnerable solely because it failed to prescribe sufficient and adequate standards to be followed by the agency. The law, however, does not require that the standards and guides be defined with the accuracy and precision of a mathematical formula which can be applied automatically. They need not be an exact yardstick. It is sufficient if Congress indicates a general criterion or an aim to serve as a guide to the administrative agency. The present statute clearly complies with this requirement.

Section 7 prescribes the following standards: "[A]dequate and safe transportation service to the public"; "interests of the carrier and employees affected"; "due consideration to the narrowing of the areas of disagreement which has been accomplished in bargaining and mediation". Under the authorities about to be discussed these standards are fully adequate to save the statute from a successful challenge on the ground of indefiniteness. In fact, many provisions of a more general character have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

For example, in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 423, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Stone, sustaining the validity of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 held that the following standards complied with the constitutional requirement: that the prices fixed by the Administrator should further the policy and conform to the standards prescribed by the act; that prices were to effectuate the declared policy of the act to stabilize commodity prices so as to prevent inflation and its enumerated disruptive causes and effects; that the prices established must be fair and equitable and that in fixing them due consideration should be given to prevailing prices during a designated base period. Obviously, these standards were no more precise or definite than those involved in the instant statute.

In Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 61 S.Ct. 524, 85 L. Ed. 624, the Supreme Court, also in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Stone, sustained the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It held that the following standards prescribed by the Act were sufficiently definite: the declared policy of the Act to raise minimum wages to forty cents an hour as rapidly as economically feasible without substantially cur

tailing employment and to determine the highest minimum wage rates with due regard to economic and comparative conditions.

Numerous other examples may be cited. To select but a few illustrative instances, the following standards have been held sufficient and adequate: "public interest, convenience or necessity", Federal Communications Commission v. RCA Communications, Inc., 346 U.S. 86, 90, 73 S.Ct. 998, 97 L.Ed. 1470; “public interest", New York Central Securities Corporation v. United States, 287 U.S. 12, 24, 53 S.Ct. 45, 77 L.Ed. 138; "just and reasonable rates", Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Company, 320 U.S. 591, 600, 64 S.Ct. 281, 88 L.Ed. 333; "excessive profits", Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 775, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. 1694.

[18] The conclusion is inescapable that the standards as defined in the enabling Act are sufficiently adequate and definite. The statute is not vulnerable to any attack on the ground of unlawful delegation of power without proper standards. The statute is clearly constitutional as being within the power of the Congress. In fact, this court would have been justified in denying the motion for the convening of a three-judge court on the ground that no substantial constitutional question is presented, as we!! as on the procedural ground on which it acted.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the award made by the arbitration board is valid; the Congress had power to order the arbitration; and, the board acted lawfully within the orbit of the authority delegated to it.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted. The plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are de nied. Counsel will submit an appropriate order.

The Craft Union Tradition

In the three key industries under study in this overview series, the most significant reason for strikes, tie-ups, walkouts and other labor interruptions is the large number of specialized unions in each major activity. These craft unions often are unfriendly and in many cases competitive. Uniformly, their attitude is to hold to present work rules and resist the requirements of technological change. In the maritime industry, particularly, groups of unions form coalitions against other groups of unions and it is virtually impossible to maintain stability of service and operations.

The America, Maximus and Savannah cases indicate the nation's seeming impotence to solve the problem of these warring maritime craft unions. At this writing, the Machinists would have closed down 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the nation's air traffic before Christmas 1963 if President Johnson had not intervened and appointed a Presidential Board to delay a walkout for at least 60 days. Another complication is that the Teamsters are challenging the Machinists for the right to represent mechanics and ground personnel at United and other air lines. The railroad industry faces possible strike consideration on February 28, 1964 with respect to many unsolved issues affecting craft unions. Pullman porters on 50 railroads were considering a walkout before the end

of 1963 or early in 1964. Mediators appear to have successfully settled this dispute which involves a substantial reduction of hours each month

without a cut in take-home pay.

A further complication is the present concern of management in all three industries with mergers and acquisitions and in many cases the ability to successfully effectuate them. These mergers stem from constantly increasing labor costs and competitive inability both on a national and international basis. At the present time, half of the nation's rail trackage is involved with actual or proposed mergers. These discussions create union hostility and worker anxiety.

Oddly enough, while it appears largely possible to trace the labor ills of the rail, air and maritime industries to the craft union tradition, the trucking industry, while not subject to craft union unrest, is confronted by a powerful industrial union under Teamster chief, James Riddle Hoffa, and is now facing what appears to be an equally undesirable alternative—a nationwide contract with a single expiration date.

Mr. Hoffa appears to possess the power to close down most of the nation's transportation network with a single stroke. This awesome power, however, is possessed and has been used by craft unions in the other transportation fields on a national basis. Often small craft unions, such

as porters or telegraphers in rail, marine engineers in maritime, and flight engineers in the airlines, have the ability to close down an entire national industry at one stroke.

Many labor experts believe that if the federal government were somehow to constrain the possible misuse of power by union leaders such as Hoffa, that a national contract with one industrial union could conceivably provide the stability now lacking in rail, air and shipping. Are industrial unions, therefore, the solution to labor-management problems in rails, air and shipping?

Workers in the railroad and maritime industries were among the earliest organizers of transportation labor unions (1870-1880) and as might have been expected, these first steps in organization followed the lines of strict craft organization. Labor organization of the airlines came later in the 1930's, and the application of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 to airline labor influenced airline labor leaders to follow the railroad type of craft organization. In fact, many of the same nonoperating unions are found today bargaining with both the rail and airline carriers.

Generally, unions in transportation, with the exception of the Teamsters, cling jealously to their traditional jurisdictional claims. These claims to jobs (property rights) continue on a craft basis, despite the fact that swiftly moving technological changes have wiped out much of the original craft distinctions.

Jets have replaced the piston airplanes, the diesel has outmoded the steam locomotive. Automated tankers are no longer unusual sights and West Coast longshoremen under Harry Bridges are now surprising us by accepting automated loading procedures. Despite the example in many industries of accepting the "new tech

nology," such as in the Kaiser Steel plan where employees share cost savings from automation, transportation unions generally continue to resist work-rule changes.

Rails Face Competition from
Other Transport Industries

Railroading offers many examples of costly and restrictive work practices primarily because of a “property rights" attitude by craft unions. In fact, the term "featherbedding” is said to have originated here. The rail industry is characteristically subject to a great deal of government regulations in its employment practices as well as in other aspects of its operations. It is also an industry facing intense competition from other forms of transportation. In 1962, railroads carried 43 per cent of all intercity freight while motor trucks accounted for 24 per cent and oil pipelines 17 per cent. While airlines are only a negligible factor in freight traffic (1 per cent), the railroads must also compete with shipping companies engaged in intercoastal traffic.

Report of the 1960

Rail Commission (February 1962)

As a result of intense competition for both freight and passengers, the nation's railroads have pushed the development of the diesel engine which made possible longer and faster trains. Outstanding among the work rules stubbornly fought for by the unions has been the union demand that firemen be retained on diesels as well as labor's resistance to changing the basis for pay (involving time and distance standards) to conform to the realities of present train schedules and speeds. These and other related issues were referred to a Presidential Railroad Commission (composed of five public, five management and five union members) in November, 1960.