TO AMEND THE RAILROAD LABOR ACT APPROVED MAY 20, 1926 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1934 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 11 a.m., Hon. William B. Bankhead (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. You may proceed, Mr. Eastman. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH B. EASTMAN, FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. EASTMAN. The Railway Labor Act as, of course, you know, was passed in 1926, and as a result of an agreement between the railroads and the labor organizations with respect to legislation intended to promote industrial peace so far as the railroads were concerned. The CHAIRMAN. For the benefit of the record please define what you mean by the railroad organizations? Mr. EASTMAN. The railroad organizations which, I think, agreed with the railroads in 1926 on the passage of the Railway Labor Act, were the so-called standard organizations. There are about 21 of them and they are national in character and cover different kinds of employment on the railroads. The CHAIRMAN. Are those 21 organizations allied with the American Federation of Labor? Mr. EASTMAN. Not all of them. The four brotherhoods, the brotherhoods which are in the train service; for example, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the Brotherhood of Trainmen, and the Brotherhood of Conductors, are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and I think one other organization is not affiliated, and that is the Train Dispatchers organization. Mr. LEHLBACH. Are the two organizations of railway conductors recognized as authoritative organizations, the Brotherhood and the Order of Railway Conductors? Mr. EASTMAN. I never heard that. Have you heard anything of that kind, Mr. Carmalt? STATEMENT OF J. W. CARMALT, ASSISTANT TO THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. CARMALT. They are spoken of as the Brotherhood, but their official title is the Order of Railway Conductors. Mr. EASTMAN. Their official title is the Order of Railway Conductors. Mr. Carmalt is my assistant and is very familiar with this legislation. The other so-called "standard organizations," I think, are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor with the exception of the switchmen. I think the switchmen are not. Mr. CARMALT. I think not. Mr. EASTMAN. In other words, there are about 6 out of the 21 that are not affiliated. The CHAIRMAN. Under the provisions of the act of 1926 there was a set-up of mediation of disputes between the railroads and their organization, and as I understand it, this bill proposes certain amendments to that act. Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. I was going on to say that the act of 1926 was the result of this agreement and it was intended to provide a system of collective bargaining and also a system for mediation or voluntary arbitration of disputes under the auspices of the United States Board of Mediation which was created at that time to take the place of the former Railroad Labor Board, and the act further provided that if mediation failed and it appeared that the traffic of the country was likely to be interrupted the President could appoint an emergency fact-finding board to report within 60 days and give the facts to the country. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the present law? Mr. EASTMAN. That is the present law. Now, the act was regarded as experimental by both parties at that time and this revision does not seek in any way to change the principles underlying the act of 1926, but seeks only to perfect the bill in the light of the experience which has occurred since 1926. Now, I can divide the bill into three parts. The 1926 act had a provision to the effect that the labor organizations and the railroads with which they dealt should be completely independent and that the railroads should not interfere with the organizations of the employees either by coercion, or undue influence, or in any other way, and that the employees should not interfere with the organization of the railroads so that the collective bargaining would be between two independent parties. That provision which is included in the present railway-labor act was not accompanied by any provision for its enforcement, and as a result the principle was departed from in a large number of instances. The result of that was that when the bankruptcy act or amendments to the bankruptcy act dealing with railroads was before Congress last year, amendments were introduced providing more explicitly certain prohibitions with respect to the dealings of the railroads with these unions, and when the emergency railroad transportation act of 1933 was enacted it incorporated those provisions of the bankruptcy act and made them applicable to all railroads. The old bankruptcy act made them applicable only to those which were in the hands of the court, in other words, in receivership or trusteeship under the bankruptcy act. Now, it has been my duty to enforce as well as I could those provisions intended to preserve complete independence by the railroads and labor organizations which are incorporated in the emergency act by reference to the bankruptcy act. However, that job was hurriedly done and there were imperfections in language, certain ambiguities, and, furthermore, there was no adequate provision for enforcement. I am glad to say that the railroads have gone along very well with me on that. Many improvements have been made in the conditions which existed; the railroads have taken their hands off of many of these organizations and permitted elections so that the men could decide just what they wanted and, on the whole, I have no complaint with respect to their performance in that particular. There are some railroads that still are guilty of certain practices which ought to be corrected under the law. The purpose of the first part of this bill is to incorporate in the permanent law in the railroad-labor act these provisions which are intended to secure complete independence between the railroads and the organizations which deal with them. There is no intent as the bill was originally recommended by me that there should be any distinctions in it between labor organizations. If the men wanted the so-called "company union", so long as the company kept its hands off of it and did not maintain it in any way or force the employees into joining it, the men would be free to join or to establish the so-called "company union" instead of joining one of the so-called "standard organizations." Mr. RANSLEY. This bill, however, will do away with the so-called independent unions which I would term the brotherhood and force them to join with this? Mr. EASTMAN. No. Mr. RANSLEY. It would not? Mr. EASTMAN. No; it permits them by crafts or classes of employees just as it should be and the men are free to select whatever organizations they want to represent them. Mr. Cox. But in the bill are you not looking ahead to finally combining all organizations into one of national scope? Mr. EASTMAN. Not unless the men want it. Now, there have been certain elections conducted by the railroads since I have been Federal Coordinator and in some of those the men have preferred to select an organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor instead of a so-called company union. They heretofore have had—and there is only recently been conducted on one road-what road was that? Mr. CARMALT. The Santa Fe. There have been a number of them. Mr. EASTMAN. On a road where they elected to join an independent company union-that is the Santa Fe, so that they are today free to do that and they would be free under this bill as it now stands. This bill, that part of it, is intended simply as a limitation on the principle which is now in the railway labor act and which has since then twice been accepted by Congress in legislation which is now part of the law of the land. It is simply intended to perfect that legislation and provide for its adequate enforcement. The CHAIRMAN. Does that meet with your approval? Mr. EASTMAN. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. What section of the bill? You say the first part of it covers that feature. What part of this bill down to and including what? Mr. EASTMAN. The first section is definitions. The part I am now talking about, section 2. Mr. MAPES. For my own information do you have any anxiety about the construction or the wording of the suggestion on page 4, line 7, that a company union shall not be " formed at the suggestion, with the aid, or under the influence of any carrier?" Mr. EASTMAN. I was going on to say that in this bill as it has been reported out of the House Committee, there are provisions which I do not approve which I would not recommend. The emergency railroad transportation act by reference to the bankruptcy act contains a prohibition against what is commonly called the "yellow dog contract", that is, the contract entered into by an employee of the railroad when he enters the employ of the railroad, that he will not belong to certain organizations or that he will join a certain organization; in other words, it governs his choice of organizations, and by the terms of the present law in the emergency railroad transportation act any such contract is prohibited with respect to any labor organization. It happens that one of these so-called standard organizations, and only one, that is the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, has certain jurisdictional disputes with another of the organizations known as the Switchmen's Union, and it has succeeded in getting from the companies so-called percentage contracts which provide that in the yards, a certain percent of the men, which is 75 percent, as a rule, and sometimes goes up as high as 100 percent, shall be members of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. In other words, it is a closed shop or partially closed shop agreement. I believe there are about 23 of these and they are the only instances I know of of such a contract so far as standard organizations are concerned. Due to the desire to protect those contracts the terms of the bill as I recommended it were amended by the House Committee and these amendments appear in this bill, and they confine that prohibition against contracts-take page 7, paragraph 5, line 10, and you will see that it reads as follows: "No carrier, its officers or agents shall require any person seeking employment to sign any contract or agreement promising to join or not to join a company union." Now, the original language as I recommend it was "No labor organization" and there are 1 or 2 more references in other parts of the bill to company unions as it became necessary to include a definition of company union on page 4, and it is in that definition that the language to which Congressman Mapes has referred occurs-that definition of a company union, I would not include in the bill. I would apply those principles indiscriminately to all labor organizations. Mr. LEHLBACH. In this definition of company union it means any group which was so formed at the suggestion, with the aid, or under the influence of any carrier and this says at the suggestion and with the aid of the railroad companies, such a union was formed. As it gets going and functioning the company withdraws any attempt to influence such a union and as you say there are instances where railroads have withdrawn any attempt to influence membership or the actions of such a company union. The mere fact that this originally remains under your definition would outlaw the union? Mr. EASTMAN. No, it would not outlaw the union. Mr. LEHLBACH. It says, which was so formed. Mr. EASTMAN. That is merely a definition of the term, company union. Mr. LEHLBACH. Yes. Mr. EASTMAN. That definition does not outlaw the company union. It is simply necessary so that when you come to page 7, and that provision of the law, that which I read, the prohibition is confined to the company union and is not extended to all labor organizations. That is the purpose of the definition. I do not understand that there is anything in the bill as it has been reported by the House Committee which necessarily outlaws a company union. It simply prohibits certain practices with respect to company unions. Mr. MAPES. I do not understand that it was just as you stated. The definition of company union on page 4, subdivision 6, was inserted by the subcommittee of the House Committee in addition to the change of language on page 7. Mr. EASTMAN. That is correct. Mr. MAPES. From a labor organization to a company union? Mr. MAPES. The definition on page 4, paragraph 6, was not in the bill as you amended it. Mr. EASTMAN. That is right. Mr. O'CONNOR. Under date of June 7 you wrote the chairman of the committee; I have a copy of your letter here. Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. Mr. O'CONNOR. You were very much concerned about certain amendments offered to the bill solely in the interest of one of these groups of trainmen? Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. Mr. O'CONNOR. You pointed out in that letter that these amendments would permit the closed shop and the "yellow dog contract and that the other labor organizations were not in favor of it. Were any of those amendments put in this bill? Mr. EASTMAN. Those are the amendments I am talking about now. I did not say in that letter, I think, that other organizations were not in favor of these amendments. I think that they are on record as in favor of these amendments. I would say that there was only one organization that I knew of that really had any interest in those amendments. Mr. O'CONNOR. You were quite strong. You said, in respect to those personal contracts, that the contracts provided the closed shop in whole or in part and it has also all the essential features of the yellow dog contract." 66 Are you for this bill if those amendments are put in there? Mr. EASTMAN. I am against those amendments and have so expressed myself. As the bill was reported out by the Senate committee it would not contain those objectionable features. Mr. Cox. With those objectionable features in the bill would you still be for it-would you be for it? Mr. EASTMAN. There are so many good features in the bill outside of it. Mr. Cox. The good outweigh the bad. Mr. EASTMAN. There are so many good features of the bill that I am inclined to think that the good outweighs the bad. Mr. DRIVER. With this reservation possibly that there would be an opportunity in the future to strengthen the bill. |