Page images
PDF
EPUB

Addendum

No.

LIST OF ADDENDA AUTHORIZED.

ADDENDA TO DECISION NO. 2.

Page.

71

1. International Association of Machinists et al. v. Alton & Southern Railroad___

2. International Association of Machinists et al. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co---.

3. International Association of Machinists et al. v. Galveston Wharf Co__

4. International Association of Machinists et al. v. Mississippi Central Railroad Co---

5. Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L., v. the Pullman Co---.

6. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes v. the Pullman Co--

71

72

2 22 22 2

73

ADDENDA TO DECISIONS.

ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO DECISION NO. 2.-CASE NO. 84.1.

Chicago, Ill., July 29, 1921.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2 and 3).-International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry.-Relating to the Alton & Southern Railroad and its Employees.

It having been made to appear that, prior to the rendition of the decision herein, a dispute (within the meaning of sec. 301 of the Transportation Act of 1920) existed between the Alton & Southern Railroad and the organizations of the employees included herein; that said dispute had not been decided in conference between representatives of the said carrier and of the said employees but refused by the said carrier; and it further appearing that the said dispute was thereupon referred by the parties thereto to the Board for hearing and decision:

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the Alton & Southern Railroad be made a party to this dispute (Dockets 1, 2, and 3) and that the decision herein be applied to it with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named originally in this decision as a party.

ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO DECISION NO. 2.-CASE NO. 83.1.

Chicago, Ill., July 29, 1921.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3).-International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry.-Relating to the Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co. and its Employees.

On written application of the Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co. to be made a party to this decision and to have the decision apply to said carrier, it is ordered that the application be granted, that the Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Co. be entered as a party to this decision, and that all the provisions of the decision shall be applied to said carrier and the organizations of the employees included herein.

ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO DECISION NO. 2.-CASE NO. 72.2.

Chicago, Ill., August 10, 1920.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3).—International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry. Relating to the Galveston Wharf Co. and its Employees. On written application of the Galveston Wharf Co. to be made a party to this decision and to have the decision apply to said carrier, it is ordered that the application be granted, that the Galveston Wharf Co. be entered as a party to this decision, and that all the provisions of the decision shall be applied to said carrier and the organizations of the employees included herein.

ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO DECISION NO. 2.-CASE NO. 70.2.

Chicago, Ill., August 25, 1920.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3).—International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry. Relating to the Mississippi Central Railroad Co. and its Employees.

It having been made to appear that, prior to the rendition of the decision herein, a dispute (within the meaning of sec. 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920) existed between the Mississippi Central Railroad Co. and the organizations of the employees included herein; that said dispute had not been decided in conference between representatives of the said carrier and of the said employees for the reason that such conference had been sought by said employees but refused by the said carrier; and it further appearing that the said dispute was thereupon referred by the parties thereto to the Board for hearing and decision:

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the Mississippi Central Railroad Co. be made a party to this dispute (Dockets 1, 2, and 3) and that the decision herein be applied to it with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named originally in this decision as a party.

ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO DECISION NO. 2.-DOCKET NO. 86.

Chicago, Ill., October 14, 1920.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3).-International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry. Relating to the Pullman Co. and its Shop Employees.

It having been made to appear that, prior to the rendition of the decision herein, a dispute (within the meaning of sec. 301 of the Transportation Act, 1920) existed between the Pullman Co. and

the Federated Shop Employes thereof, represented by the Railway Employes' Department of the American Federation of Labor; that said dispute had not been decided in conference between representatives of the said carrier and of the said employees for the reason that such conference had been sought by said employees but refused by the said carrier; and it further appearing that the said dispute was thereupon referred by the parties thereto to the Board for hearing and decision:

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the Pullman Co. be made a party to this dispute (Dockets 1, 2, and 3) and that the decision herein. be applied to it with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named originally in this decision as a party.

ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO DECISION NO. 2.-DOCKET NO. 85.

Chicago, Ill., October 16, 1920.

Decision No. 2 (Dockets 1, 2, and 3).—International Association of Machinists et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway et al.

Entry.-Relating to The Pullman Co. and its Clerical and Station Employes.

It having been made to appear that, prior to the rendition of the decision herein, a dispute (within the meaning of sec. 301 of the Transportation Act of 1920) existed between the Pullman Co. and the clerical and station forces thereof, represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes; that said dispute had not been decided in conference between the representatives of the said carrier and of the said employees for the reason that such conference had been sought by said employees but refused by the said carrier; and it further appearing that the said dispute was thereupon referred by the parties thereto to the Board for hearing and decision:

Now, therefore, it is ordered that The Pullman Co. be made a party to this dispute (Dockets 1, 2, and 3) and that the decision herein be applied to it with the same force and effect as if the said carrier had been named originally in this decision as a party.

« PreviousContinue »