Mr. EASTMAN. Yes; and if it was passed in this form by the House there would be a hope that we could straighten it out when it came to conference.

Mr. MAPES. Is there any particular objection to the definition of the company union as carried in the bill now on your part?

Mr. EASTMAN. Not believing that there is any need for a definition I have not given any particular attention to it.

Mr. MAPES. I would like to get your answer.

Mr. EASTMAN. I have not studied that definition particularly because I have taken the position that there was no need for a definition.

Mr. MAPES. It simply defines the company union as an organization in the hands of the carriers. Personally I do not see any objection to it.

Mr. EASTMAN. I have always defined the company union in my own mind as simply a union which is confined in its membership to the employees of a single company-that has been my own definition. Mr. Cox. I will ask you this question-the membership of these company unions constitute a considerable part of the total employee population, I take it? There are still quite a number of these company unions.

They are given no representation of this sort as set up under this bill. Should they not have some representation?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is the second part of the bill that I was going to discuss.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Pursuing what I was saying about your strong objection to these amendments, you said in your letter that “I am confident that the only support for the proposed amendments is from a single organization ", meaning the trainmen.

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. None of the other standard organizations has anything to gain from such changes in the bill?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. What is the membership of the trainmen organizations, roughly?

Mr. EASTMAN. I cannot give you that; it is a large organization. Mr. O'CONNOR. Would it be over one-tenth of the total railway employees?

Mr. EASTMAN. One-tenth-I should suppose not.

Mr. CARMALT. Probably about that figure. But the number of men affected by the contract was 1 percent.

Mr. O'CONNOR. The number of men affected by the contract is only 1 percent of the railway employees?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. And you object to the percentage contract amendment in this bill?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR. If that went through, the benefit of this bill would be for the benefit of 1 percent of the total railway employees? Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed to the second section of the matter.

Mr. EASTMAN. The second section of the bill deals with the creation of the national adjustment board through the present railway labor

act and contemplates the creation of regional national adjustment. boards by the carriers and by the employees, these boards to be made up of an equal number of representatives of each side to settle minor disputes, what are called grievances or disputes which arise over interpretation of the rules. These boards are not intended to have anything to do with basic questions of the level of wages or the creation of rules. They are to pass upon the grievances. While the present act makes full provision for the creation of such adjustment boards, as a matter of fact they have not been created to any great extent. There are certain regional adjustment boards in connection. with train service employees, and that I think embraces about all that are in existence and even those are not participated in by many of the carriers. Some of the carriers have kept out from the adjustment boards altogether. Due to the absence of those adjustment boards for which the act provides and also the fact that membership is equally divided so that deadlocks are possible these grievances on a number of roads have in the past few years accumulated to such an extent that the only remedy the men could see was to threaten a strike and thus secure appointment by the President of a fact finding board which could go into the whole situation. That has happened on several occasions. Some of these grievances have accumulated up into the hundreds on the various roads and when the situation finally became intolerable the men would threaten a strike which would give the President a reason for the appointment of an emergency fact finding board and the fact finding board has gone in and ironed the situation out. I think there was a general agreement that the situation ought to be corrected and this bill undertakes to correct it in two ways. It sets up national adjustment boards which will operate in four different sections. It is really four different boards and it further provides in the case of deadlocks appointing representatives of both sides on those boards, its representatives being equally divided and they shall call in a neutral member nominated by the mediation board to settle the dispute. In other words, the possibility of deadlocks is absolutely prevented, also the creation of these adjustment boards is made compulsory. Now, the principal objections raised to the creation of the national adjustment boards operating in four sections were two. In the first place, it was argued by the railroads that these boards would become congested and they would bog down and be unable to handle the business. Personally I do not think that would result. It did not result the time they had the national adjustment boards during the period of Federal control and the tendency is always to settle disputes down on the ground and they have settled them and prevent them from going to the national adjustment board and this board shall be named by the President for the settlement of such disputes. However, that matter was finally cured by the provision that if anyone of these sections of the national adjustment board shall become congested it shall have authority to establish a regional board to get out of that difficulty. But the other objection was the one that is raised that these so-called independent company unions did not have representation now, but they may have representation if they wish to organize on a national basis, if they wish to form an association, and the independent shop unions will go along with everyone else.

But as a matter of fact the theory upon which these unions were established is that they can deal very intimately with the railroad management and the whole theory of the adjustment board is inconsistent with the theory upon which they are established.

Mr. Cox. I see your point.

Mr. MAPES. Would the carriers be violating this law if they set up terms of arriving at agreements with the so-called company unions independent of the law?

Mr. EASTMAN. No.

Mr. MAPES. So that if there should be a really bona fide company union that union and the carriers and the company could arrange for a settlement of the difficulties without any reference to this law?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. MAPES. And inasmuch as the company union comes outside of the law it would not have to comply with it at all?

Mr. EASTMAN. That provision on page 22 simply is that "nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any individual carrier, system, or group of carriers and any class or classes of its or their employees, all acting through their representatives selected in accordance with the provisions of this act, from mutually agreeing to the establishment "-that means representatives, selected without coercion―" from mutually agreeing to the establishment of system, group, or regional boards of adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes of the character specified in this section. If such voluntary method of adjustment is established it shall preclude the parties thereto from presenting disputes, either originally or on appeal, to any board of adjustment provided for in this section. In the event that either party to such a system, group, or regional board of adjustment is dissatisfied with such arrangement, it may upon ninety days' notice to the other party elect to come under the jurisdiction of the adjustment board."

Mr. Cox. Does not that necessarily support the proposition that so far as the industrial phase is concerned it would be unfortunate to strike down those independent unions?

Mr. EASTMAN. They are not stricken down if the men want them. There is not anything in the act. In fact, this act provides for an election, a very excellent thing, and if there is a dispute as to jurisdiction the men can conduct an election and decide what sort of labor organization they want. If they want a company union they have a right to get it.

Mr. Cox. But the price of participatio, the price of representation, is that they become national in scope.

Mr. EASTMAN. No.

Mr. Cox. I understood that to be your answer, that they should organize in a national way and thereby lose their identity or their character as a local organization maintaining intimate relations with the employers.

Mr. EASTMAN. What I mean is this: If they want to participate in selection of this national board they can organize in a national way and still preserve their local organization by forming company unions in the shop crafts, for example. Each union would be a separate organization and they would form a national organiza

tion of those unions for the purpose of participating in the selection of this national labor board.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Sort of a federation of independent unions.

Mr. EASTMAN. However, the more important thing, it seems to me, is that the whole theory upon which they are organized is that there is no need whatever for a national board insofar as they are concerned, that they can settle their disputes by dealing intimately with the companies on the ground

Mr. Cox. Where that is possible it is better for the employees and employers that these be maintained?

Mr. EASTMAN. They are given the entire right to do that under this bill. If they prefer that theory they can go ahead and act on it and reach their agreement with the company and deal intimately and locally with them.

Mr. GREENWOOD. If they reach a place where they cannot do that, this is an open forum for them to come in with their own organizations to have the decision of the national adjustment board.

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes; they can present their case to the national board but would not have any part in the selection of the national board.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Is not the implication thrown out to them to disintegrate and to reform themselves into a new association?

Mr. MAPES. Is not this true, that the particular idea of the company union is against national organization?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is what it seems to me, yes.

Mr. MAPES. The company union is a term that confines it to a company union and it is only interested in its own disputes, in its own company, and has no thought of any national scope. It is just the settlement of its own differences with its own company.

Mr. EASTMAN. That is the point I was trying to make and you have stated it better than I could. When you are dealing with a railroad, you must remember this, that as far as a large percentage. of the employees are concerned, they are completely organized nationally. Take the train service brotherhoods, and there are no exceptions; they exist on every railroad. I say there are no exceptions. There may be one or two smaller roads, some little lines which are exceptions, but broadly speaking, they cover the field completely and have for many years and there is no question of a company union with the trainmen, engineers, conductors, or firemen. The company unions are confined very largely to the shop employees and maintenance-of-way men. There are some in the cases of clerks, but as you go out among the train service employees you are dealing with national organizations which have been in the field and have existed for many years and you have to deal with them on a national basis.

Mr. Cox. Does that apply in the case of the short-line railroads generally, or do not the employees of the short-line railroads generally maintain their own local association or organization?

Mr. EASTMAN. I have not the full facts in regard to that but my guess would be that in the case of the short-line railroads they very often are not organized at all.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Contrasted to that statement as to the national scope of these unions, is not this particular kind of labor different

from other labor in that these men usually stay with the same employer, the same railroad, most of their lives? They do not shift from one railroad to another very much, do they?

Mr. EASTMAN. I do not think they do in the train service. I have never investigated the facts.

Mr. GREENWOOD. It is more in the shop service than in the train service.

Mr. EASTMAN. We know that company unions exist but as to how far there are floaters in railroad employes, I do not know.

Mr. O'CONNOR. It would be a very interesting thing to find out. Mr. EASTMAN. We are making an investigation in connection with pension legislation and the employees records will develop all those facts.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the pension bill pass the Senate yesterday? Mr. EASTMAN. I do not know whether it passed or not; I do not think it did.

Mr. Cox. Is there serious objection to exempting short-line railroads from the operation of this act?

Mr. EASTMAN. The short-line railroads are all in the railway labor act now and this, as I have said, follows the principles of the present railway labor act and its intent is only to perfect it.

Mr. Cox. If an exception should be made in this bill, just what would be the effect of it?

Mr. EASTMAN. I have seen no occasion to exempt the short-line railroads from this bill. They have no trouble with the present railway labor act and I do not think they will have under this. The only thing in principle which would justify the extension was the fact that the short-line roads are in this situation, that the men, I think, understand they have the choice of accepting wages lower than the general level of wages or having no work at all and they are willing to go along on that basis. Those roads are up against it to such an extent as that.

Mr. Cox. Considering the condition of those roads, they pay fair wages, do they not?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes: pay what wages they can pay. Many of them are in a situation where if they paid any more they would have to cease operating.

Mr. GREENWOOD. If a dispute arises between members of the shortline roads they ought to have the same advantage as other roads? Mr. EASTMAN. Yes.

Mr. Cox. If there is a local organization to handle these matters, it ought to be permitted to function rather than being wiped out through the administration of this act.

Mr. EASTMAN. This permits these local adjustment boards to be maintained and as far as this national adjustment board is concerned it deal only with grievances. When it comes to major issues they are handled by mediation as now.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The larger percentage of the disputes could be settled by the local adjustment board rather than the national.

Mr. EASTMAN. I should hope that they would be settled locally between the management and the men. That is what ought to happen in most of the grievances.

Mr. GREENWOOD. This law sets up local boards?