Emergency board recommendations Emergency board recommendations Emergency board recommendations Agreement reached on basis of emer- Emergency board recommendations Emergency board recommendations Emergency board recommendations accepted by union, rejected by carrier. RESPONSES OF RAILROADS TO EMERGENCY MOVEMENT OF GOODS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, Mr. ROBERT HARRIS, Washington, D.C., May 24, 1967. Counsel, Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, New Senate Office Bulding, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRIS: At the hearing on S.J. Res. 81, May 16, 1967, Senator Morse referred to the following statement from the testimony of Mr. H. E. Gilbert, President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen: "In March 1966 the BLF&E struck eight railroads for four days. All defense trains that we were requested to move were moved. This is a matter of court record from carrier officials. Therefore the shopcraft unions' promise of defense transportation is not an idle or empty one." At that time Mr. A. J. Greenough, President, Pennsylvania Railroad Company, was testifying, and in response to a question from Senator Morse as to whether he had any comments to make on Mr. Gilbert's statement, Mr. Greenough stated that it was his recollection that nothing was moved on the Pennsylvania Railroad except a few cars of perishables moved by supervisory crews. Senator Morse then requested you to prepare a memorandum giving the committee a factual analysis of what happened during the four days on the railroads concerned. I was then asked to cooperate with counsel for the committee in helping to supply him whatever information he might need to have from the standpoint of the railroads. As a result of this request I sent a telegram to the railroads involved asking for the information that I thought would enable you to meet Senator Morse's request. A copy of that telegram is enclosed. The telegram was sent to nine different railroads and replies were received from all of them, but you will note that there was a single telegraphic response covering the activities of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and the Texas and Pacific Railway Company. Copies of these responses are also enclosed. As I read these responses there were two isolated instances during the four day strike on the eight railroads where requests were made on union employees to handle defense shipments and the movements were made in both cases. One such occurrence was on the Union Pacific Railroad and the other was on the Illinois Central Railroad. It should be noted, however, that in the case of the Union Pacific the traffic in question had left its point of origin well in advance of the commencement of the strike and in the case of the Illinois Central the union crew that ultimately handled the movement of the defense material involved left its home terminal unaware that the strike had commenced and merely operated the train of defense material, without crossing picket lines, from a point short of its original destination back to the crews' home terminal from whence the movement was continued with the use of supervisory personnel. The detailed circumstances surrounding these movements are shown in replies from these companies. In addition to these two movements there were two other trains moved by union employees which are not mentioned in the replies attached hereto because the enquiry related only to "defense trains." I note them here only because they were mentioned in the court proceeding to which reference is made in Mr. Gilbert's statement, and in the interest of completeness. One of these involved the completion of the movement to Boston of a milk train en route from a point in New York state by employees of the Boston and Maine Corporation; the other involved the movement of a prisoner train in Kansas by union employees of the Union Pacific Railroad. I hope this provides you with the necessary information from the standpoint of the railroads to enable you to respond to the request from Senator Morse, but if you feel that anything further is required, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. Sincerely yours, GREGORY S. PRINCE. MAY 17, 1967. Senate Labor Subcommittee handling hearings on S.J. Res. 81. The President's proposal to settle the dispute between railroads and shopcraft unions, has requested information regarding following statement made yesterday at the hearings by H. E. Gilbert, president, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine |