RAILROAD SHOPCRAFT DISPUTE

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph Yarborough (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Yarborough, (presiding), Morse, Randolph, Pell, and Javits.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Robert O. Harris, counsel to the subcommittee; Gene Godley, professional staff member; Eugene Mittelman, minority counsel; and Peter Benedict, minority labor counsel.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Labor will come to order.

Hearings will be resumed on Senate Joint Resolution 81, to provide for the settlement of the labor dispute between certain carriers by railroad and certain of their employees.

I have a letter here addressed to me as chairman in response to a question from Senator Morse. I will turn that over to Senator Morse to read.

We will hear the first witness, Mr. Charles Luna, president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. We have also Mr. H. E. Gilbert, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen. These gentlemen are not going to appear at the same time, but as separate witnesses.

Mr. Luna, I will have to leave for an executive markup session of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Morse will preside at this hearing. I will return as soon as that markup is completed.

We are pleased to have you. You may proceed in your own way. You may proceed with your statement uninterrupted.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LUNA, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, CLEVELAND, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY A. H. CHESSER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND JOHN HALEY, ATTORNEY

Mr. LUNA. Thank you.

I would like to introduce the two gentlemen who are at the table. On my left is Mr. Al Chesser, our national representative in Washington, and Mr. John Haley, our attorney, who has been in litigation on Public Law 88-108.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We are glad to have you both.

Mr. LUNA. I have furnished the committee a copy of my statement. If it is all right with the commitee I would like to talk from notes. Senator YARBOROUGH. That is all right. I will introduce the whole statement in the record at his time so that the full statement will be printed in continuity.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Luna follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES LUNA, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, AFL-CIO

I want to thank the members of this Committee for the opportunity to appear in behalf of the employees I represent.

My name is Charles Luna. I am President of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO.

I am appearing today in opposition to the proposed S.J. Resolution 81, placed before the Congress by the President in his May 4, 1967 message. This is the dispute involving the carriers represented by the National Railway Labor Conference and the six shopcraft unions.

On July 29, 1963, I appeared before the Committee on Commerce of the U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, to oppose the enactment of legislation proposed by another President to prevent a nation-wide rail tieup threatened by the railroads. (S.J. Resolution 102)

Then, as now, railroad management wanted a crisis in the hope that the Congress would bail them out and give them undue advantage in dealing with their employees by giving them compulsory arbitration. They got it then. I hope and pray that this Congress will not make the same mistake.

Since the enactment of the 1963 compulsory arbitration law, known as PL 88-108, the railroad employees in train and yard service have been drastically affected contrary to what Congress intended. The provisions of PL 88-108 were only intended to last for a period of 2 years, the same as the provisions of this new legislation. But that is not what happened.

The railroads have obtained court decisions to the effect that the special board decisions constituted a permanent change in our agreements, which change came about strictly by compulsory arbitration! And to make it worse, these railroad employees were required to pay half the cost of these arbitration procedures which were designed for the benefit of management! Thousands of dollars came out of the pockets of railroad brakemen and switchmen to pay for the elimination of their jobs! Some of the very men who lost their jobs helped pay for their own execution!

Now this arbitration procedure which the Congress passed in 1963 provided that the award of the arbitration board expired at the end of two years. Section 4 (of Public Law 88-108) stated in part as follows:

"The award shall continue in force for such period as the arbitration board shall determine in its award, but not to exceed two years from the date the award takes effect, unless the parties agree otherwise."

But that provision didn't mean a thing to the courts, because parts of the award and all of the results of the procedures it established are still in effect by court order, which is under appeal now.

The crew consist dispute, as it developed following the enactment of the 1963 Compulsory Arbitration law, shows what will happen to collective bargaining on the railroads if the Congress continues to intervene in these disputes not because there is an actual emergency but simply because they are afraid there might be one! It also shows you what the railroads are up to.

Congress, in passing the 1963 law, intended for the parties to continue to negotiate in attempts to settle the crew consist issue. All concerned understood that. Mr. Wolfe, representing the railroads, testified before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, on page 559 of the transcript of hearings on H.J. Res. 565 in 1963, as follows:

"Mr. BROYHILL. My final question is, would not the party that would be favored by any ICC interim rule be reluctant to bargain and thus the doors of bargaining would be closed for all practical purposes?"

"Mr. WOLFE. I think responsible people to whom this resolution would be applicable must certainly realize that by the end of 2 years they ought to have their problems solved. They are going to have to solve them sometime, and this is the only temporary relief to protect the public interest as we understand it."

"Mr. BROYHILL. You are saying that if the railroads were favored by any ICC interim rule that you would still be willing to bargain?"

"Mr. WOLFE. We will be willing to bargain under any circumstances. But when I say bargaining, I mean bargaining in its true and accepted sense, that both parties sit down and in a manner that is favorable to both of them. Give and take, as I understand, doesn't mean that one party gives and the other takes. They both give and they both take."

In the hearings before the Committee on Commerce in 1963, Secretary of Labor Wirtz testified and stated as follows (From Page 47, transcript of hearings :) "This interim rule would go into effect for a 2-year period or until the parties reached their own settlement by collective bargaining. And it is urged all the way through here that collective bargaining procedure continue and that the final answer be found there."

And Mr. J. E. Wolfe testified before the Committee on Commerce as follows (From Page 364, transcript of hearings :)

"Senator MONRONEY. Do you take this bill that is before us, with all that is at stake in the shutdown, as being a means of obtaining a compulsory arbitration under another name?"

"Mr. WOLFE. No, sir; I do not. I think that I agree with the description of that resolution by Mr. Wirtz, Scretary of Labor, that it does give the Interstate Commerce Commission the authority to establish interim rules. And during that period it contemplates that the parties themselves, as they eventually will have to do sometime or another, will finally dispose of these long, drawnout disputes by collective bargaining.”

So what happened during the 2-year period under the arbitration law? Several important things.

I encouraged our representatives on individual railroads to seek out their managements and attempt to make a fair and reasonable settlement. Some few of them were able to do so. Some railroads did not even propose any changes under the arbitration award. But during the period of the arbitration award, from January 25, 1964 until January 25, 1966, the Mediation Board appointed 93 neutrals to serve on special boards under the award. Their decisions, in almost every case, rubber-stamped the company's proposals. The result was a mockery, a company-dominated procedure.

In January of 1965, I took a personal hand in the crew consist dispute. I contacted some of the top railroad officials in the East and told them that we could negotiate a settlement. They sat down with me and on January 29, 1965, we wrote an agreement which settled the crew consist dispute on most of the railroads in the East, including such lines as the Pennsylvania and the New York Central. Later, others joined including the Baltimore and Ohio system, until the total reached 32 railroads. And this settlement was for a 5-year period with changes thereafter to be in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

Next, I wrote letters to the Presidents of a number of railroads in the West and Southeast, furnishing them copy of the Eastern Agreement. I ask for a conference at which this problem could be discussed and perhaps settled by mutual agreement. I hoped that the solution to this crew consist dispute had been found.

The replies began coming in and almost every one of them either referred me to their personnel department or advised me that their problems on crew consist would be handled by the National Railway Labor Conference. Not one single railroad in the Southeast or West was willing to settle, or has settled to this day. Those which had previously settled reopened the dispute.

Left with no other choice, I authorized our general chairman on each railroad which had not settled the crew consist dispute to serve formal notice under the Railway Labor Act, in order to initiate conferences to dispose of the matter before the end of the 2-year period. The railroads responded by taking the position that they were not required to bargain until the 2-year period expired! They went to court to avoid the conference table, and they took the position in the courts that the Railway Labor Act required the parties to bargain nationally when the railroads proposed to do so.

Judge Holtzoff, in the district court in Washington, upheld them in their contention that if some of the railroads wanted to combine the dispute into a concerted movement, the employees had no choice under the Railway Labor Act but to follow that procedure. He got that support out of some other law, because he could not find it in the Railway Labor Act. Today, the issue is before the Washington Court of Appeals, and I am glad to say that our position is being supported by the Justice Department, which is taking the position that the district court has forced bargaining over crew consist into a national mold-so that unless agreement is reached on that issue, the public may be confronted with another national railroad crisis.

Now that is just what these railroads are up to. If you don't give them what they want in this dispute before you now, and if they have their way in the courts, they will be back before you again begging for compulsory arbitration.

Somewhere along the line, collective bargaining is going to have to be resumed on these railroads if they are to continue to be under private control and ownership.

Our members are writing to me daily and they are plenty sore. They want to know how it is that the courts can disregard the action of the Congress and extend the period of the existing law by extending the terms of the Arbitration Award under P.L. 88–108. They are not satisfied with any answer I can give them since all I can say is that the thing is still in court-we are still appealing for justice! They are sick of waiting for justice. They want action from their representatives to better their working conditions, and they are fed up to the neck with these pro-management arbitration awards and court judgments.

They want to know why the railroad brotherhoods cannot represent railroad employees like unions in other industries do. They feel that their work is important enough to justify working conditions equal to those enjoyed by other groups of workers, and I agree with them 100%. But when I try to help them improve their working conditions, what happens?

The railroad attorneys just go and wake up a judge and get him to write them out an injunction.

When the courts get through kicking it around, months later, and discover that we had the right to bargin collectively all the time, and turns us loose to go ahead with our case, the railroad attorneys simply figure out another angle and go back to another judge or maybe the same one and Bingo! We are stopped by another injunction!

The whole picture adds up to this proceeding here, where the railroads are trying to get the Congress to pass a law providing for COMPULSORY ARBITRATION as a permanent change in the Railway Labor Act. They believe that if they come back to the Congress and scream loud enough, they won't have to bargain ever again with their employees because Congress will give them what they want. That will be a sorry day for human liberties when a giant industry can put the yoke of compulsion on their employees with the aid of Congress.

The men who operate the trains of this nation are demanding that their rights to freedom in collective bargaining without discrimination be preserved and strengthened. I urge you not to forget that these men are not in government employment. They work for a rich and powerful combine which collectively is using the vital nature of their product to gain an advantage in collective bargaining with their employees! Please don't let that happen in America!

Senator YARBOROUGH. You can proceed to discuss your statement by notes or any way you care to.

Mr. LUNA. Thank you.

I want to thank the committee for allowing me to appear. My name is Charles Luna. I am president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, AFL-CIO. I have a prepared statement which is here. As you mentioned, it will be put in the record and made a matter of record.

I am appearing today in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 81 placed before the Congress by the President on May 4. This concerns the dispute of the carriers represented by the National Railway Labor Conference and the six shopcrafts.