Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the settlement of any disputes which arise and, consequently, the provisions of the act should be made applicable to all carriers who hold any type of operating certificate or operate in any manner so as to affect interstate air commerce. Secondly, section 48 of S. 308 would attempt to limit the right of certain employees to organize by altering the definition of the term "employee" or "subordinate official" as presently contained in section 201 of the Railway Labor Act. We are strongly opposed to this amendment. Based on our experience, it is our opinion that such an amendment would create confusion in the industry and result in innumerable labor disputes. In addition, it would destroy established patterns of representation and deny basic privileges to many individuals.

The language of the proposed amendment itself is faulty. It is so broad and general that it could be construed to encompass practically all employees. Under the present practice, the administrative agency of the Railway Labor Act, the National Mediation Board, is charged with determining what constitutes a proper craft and class for representation purposes under the Railway Labor Act and what constitutes an employee or subordinate official. The decision of the National Mediation Board is reached after extensive hearings on the subject and is predicated on the facts involved in the particular case. The language of the proposed amendment is so all inclusive that it would practically preclude the exercise of independent judgment by the Board and would result in the destruction of many craft and class determinations carefully established by the Board over many years. We quote for your convenience the language of the proposed amendment:

"Provided, That the terms 'employee' or 'subordinate official' shall not include any individual having authority, in the interest of a carrier or contractor, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment."

It is obvious from the foregoing that the broad and all-inclusive language could deny representation to practically all employees in any position of responsibility. S. 1119 does not contain this amendment and we support the exclusion of it.

EXEMPTION FROM COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LEGISLATION

We again wish to reemphasize our position taken during the hearings on S. 2647 that the power to grant exemptions from minimum standards of compensation should be removed from the present act. The minimum standards established in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, are those established in 1934. The passage of time has caused them to be in fact minimum standards far below the normal rates of compensation being paid. We can see no justification for permitting an exemption from such minimum standard for any air carrier. Therefore, we urge that section 416 of the present act be amended to eliminate any authority to grant exemptions from compliance with the labor conditions as outlined in the act.

COMPELLING TESTIMONY

Section 1004 (i) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, is designed to protect an individual who is compelled to give testimony which might tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty. This provision of the act is necessary to protect the rights of individual citizens and is particularly important in this legislation so as to enable accident investigators to secure the maximum amount of information for the prevention of future accidents.

We believe the language of the present act is clear in that it provides for the protection of an airman against civil fines and penalties in those instances where he is compelled to testify. For some reason, however, the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics has recently taken the position that this protection applies only in criminal actions and that in civil actions, which may result in monetary penalties or loss of license, the airman is not entitled to this protection as provided in the law. In this regard, the Administrator is in conflict with a decision of the Civil Aeronautics Board holding to the contrary. The Administrator has appealed the decision of the Civil Aeronautics Board to the United States Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and, in our opinion, is attempting to deny to airmen the basic protection which Congress intended to provide for them in including this provision in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. We believe that this protection is essential to insure that there is a free flow of information in the investi

gation of any incidents or accidents in the interest of maximum safety in air transportation. It is urged, therefore, that the act be amended in such a manner as to clearly spell out the intent of Congress in this regard.

CIVIL PENALTIES

S. 308 contains a proposed amendment of section 32 to allow the imposition of civil penalties for violations of sections XII, IV-A and IV. This amendment accommodates the desire of the Civil Aeronautics Board for a more flexible method of enforcement of the provisions provided in the aforementionel sections of the Civil Aeronautics Act. The Board evidently feels that this is a necessary addition to the administrative and criminal remedies presently available to them for economic violations. We agree with the Civil Aeronautics Board that it is desirable that a more expeditious method of enforcement is necessary. We are mindful of recent instances where certain air carriers have persisted in filing unrealistic public schedules misrepresenting to the public their capabilities to provide air transportation. Several carriers have persisted in such disregard of scheduling requirements in the public interest for well over a year without effective enforcement or remedial action being taken by the Board. This has been true, either as a result of the reluctance of the Civil Aeronautics Board to enforce its own regulations or the lack, in their opinion, of a realistic means of enforcement. Under any circumstances, the public has been deluded by public misrepresentations of flight schedules for more than a year without remedial action.

On the other hand, we are mindful of the fact that the authority to impose civil penalties results in the ex parte determination of any charges of law violation. Such an authority is presently exercised by the Administrator against airmen where charges of alleged violations of the Civil Air Regulations are made. The individual airman is then faced with the problem of either paying the penalty, even though he is convinced that he is innocent of the alleged charges, or facing the expense and loss of time entailed in defending a suit brought in the Federal courts to enforce the penalty, which suit will probably cost the Government and the defendant many times the amount of the penalty. Pilots have described this system as an "extortion" method of enforcement. In view of the foregoing, we suggest the act be amended in such a manner that the right of the Administrator or the Civil Aeronautics Board to impose civil penalties on a carrier or airman be established; however, a charge should be brought only after a proper screening by the Board to make certain that a violation has occurred, that such violation warrants a penalty, and that the penalty asked is realistic. In any event, the carriers and airmen should be afforded equal treatment by the provisions of the act in this regard.

AUTHORITY FOR SAFETY MEASURES

Senate Document No. 163, titled "Aviation Study" prepared for the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, and presented by Mr. Bricker on August 20, 1954, proposed an amendment of section 1101 of the Civil Aeronautics Act by adding a new subsection (b) to read as follows:

"(b) An air carrier, foreign air carrier, air contractor or foreign air contractor, through the pilot in command of any aircraft, shall have authority, while an aircraft of such carrier or contractor is engaged in air navigation, including the time such aircraft is on the ground, to take such action as may in the judgment of such officer be reasonably necessary in the interest of safety or the reasonable comfort of the passengers and the members of the crew."

The explanatory material pointed out that this amendment was urged by the air transport industry "to give clear statutory authority to the pilot of an aircraft to take such action as is necessary to protect the aircraft passengers and crew from dangerous passengers or others, thus placing the officer in charge of the aircraft in a status comparable to that of the captain of a ship." We urge that such an amendment be adopted.

This problem has been a source of concern to the pilots of United States air carriers and the pilots of other countries for sometime. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations has been active for some years in seeking to have the International Civil Aviation Organization clarify and clearly establish the authority of the pilot to carry out the responsibilities placed upon him. Present civil air regulations specify the responsibility imposed upon an aircraft commander and there are contentions that, inherent in the imposition of such responsibilities, is the authority with which to carry them out. However,

we believe that the amendment proposed is a necessary addition to the act in order to provide the necessary authority for the pilot in command to take such actions as are necessary in the protection of life and property in much the same manner as such authority has historically been given to the captain of a ship at

sea.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation and would be happy to furnish any additional information at our disposal to aid the members of the committee in reaching a decision on these important matters.

Senator MONRONEY. The next witness is Mr. W. F. Kinnard, who appears on behalf of the Air Line Dispatchers Association, American Federation of Labor.

STATEMENT OF W. F. KINNARD, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AIR LINE DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. Kinnard, would you come forward?
Mr. KINNARD. Yes, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. We appreciate very much your courtesy in coming before the committee and would be glad to have your testimony.

Mr. KINNARD. I have a prepared statement I would like to enter in the record, and I am having duplicates made for the record also. To save time I could put this into the record.

Senator MONRONEY. You may read it if you like.

Mr. KINNARD. I would like to submit it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MONRONEY. We will be glad to have it.

(The above-mentioned document is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. KINNARD, AIR LINE DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION, A. F. OF L., CONCERNING S. 308 BY SENATOR BRICKER TO AMEND THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED

Mr. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: My name is William F. Kinnard. I am the Washington representative of the Air Line Dispatchers Association, A. F. of L. I live at 712 South Pitt Street, Alexandria, Va.

We respectfully submit for your consideration our recommendation that section 48 appearing on page 49 of S. 308, lines 8 to 21, inclusive, be deleted as an amendment to section 201 of the Railway Labor Act.

We are in agreement with the position taken by our brother labor organizations representing other airline employee groups who would be seriously damaged by this proposed amendment.

Many of our members hold positions as supervising aircraft dispatchers. These men are chosen from the aircraft dispatcher complement and represent the oldest and most experienced men in the field.

This amendment would not allow them to be included in negotiated labor agreements and would deprive them of protection they deserve and have enjoyed for many years.

In my own case, I am employed full time as senior dispatcher and operations coordinator by Capital Airlines, Inc., at the Washington National Airport. By labor contract definition I am the planner of operations.

While on duty I direct the activities of the entire flight dispatch office. I responsibly direct the aircraft dispatchers and coordinate their activities with other departments.

A parallel situation prevails aboard an aircraft in flight, whereby the pilot in command supervises the activities of all other crew members.

While I am the company representative responsible for the overall economic aspects of our flight operations during a particular 8-hour period, I am required to work schedules rotated weekly between day, afternoon, and night shifts, in exactly the same manner as the regular aircraft dispatchers.

I have referred to my personal position in the industry only because many others are performing exactly the same type of work and would fall into the

category of those who stand to lose much of that for which they have worked for many years, if this amendment prevails.

Now I refer to S. 1119, and specifically to the amendment of March 23, 1955, by Senator Magnuson to include ministers of religion in the second sentence of the subsection (b) of section 403 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended. We recommend that this section be made to include officials of labor organizations representing the various airline employee groups when they are traveling on official business.

In support of this recommendation we call attention to the continuing need for harmony in airline labor relations as being in the public interest. Free air travel for labor officials will promote such harmony.

Now I would like to call your attention to a completely different situation arising out of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, which causes a serious defect in conflict with the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

I refer specifically to title II of the Railway Labor Act as cited under title IV, section 401, paragraph 1, of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

The Railway Labor Act as first adopted in title I, had to do with rail transportation in 1926, which did then and still does, stop at the coast lines. No one thought it applicable to scheduled air transportation throughout the world. However, when labor relations of scheduled airlines required congressional legislation, the Congress added title II to the Railway Labor Act and applied the provisions of title I to air transportation labor relations. This was done in 1936, again when air transportation was in its infancy and nominal in character internationally.

Then in 1938 the Civil Aeronautics Act was enacted by the Congress and under that act comprehensive regulations were adopted to provide for economical and safe operations of air carriers. The Civil Aeronautics Act required these air carriers to comply with the Railway Labor Act and thus the two enactments were tied together.

Included in the Civil Air Regulations as applied to scheduled United States air carriers a comprehensive series of regulations provide for a ground control officer, known in the regulations as the aircraft dispatcher. This officer is a licensed and certificated employee of the air carrier equal in authority to each captain or pilot in controlling the origination, continuation, and termination of scheduled air carrier flights of United States carriers.

It must be remembered that the aircraft dispatcher is a creature of the Civil Air Regulations. His equal does not exist in the operations of Air France, or to the operations of Sabena, BOAC, or other similar international carriers which are citizens of countries other than the United States of America. This method of operating their flights is different, and flight control on the ground by a licensed control operator is not utilized for safety as are the flights of Pan American, TWA, Northwest, Colonial, Braniff, etc.

These regulations require that these aircraft dispatchers be stationed out along the lines of the carriers at proper places and in sufficient numbers to ensure safety of flight. This has required the stationing of aircraft dispatchers by Pan American at Gander, London, Beirut, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and other places; and by TWA at Gander, Paris, Rome, Cairo, and other places; and by Northwest at Tokyo; and by Braniff at Lima, Rio, and Buenos Aires.

Historically, the National Mediation Board, which is the board that enforces and applies the Railway Labor Act has ruled that Pan American, for example, represents one single unit throughout the world for the designation of labor classes or crafts and as provided by the Railway Labor Act. The Board, however, had ruled that it cannot enforce section 2 ninth (representation provisions) by taking mail ballots from any employees stationed at the particular time in question, outside the Continental United States, its Territories and possessions. Until 1947 the problem did not arise, but at that time an Assistant Attorney General issued an opinion to the National Mediation Board holding that the geographical limits of the Board's jurisdiction coincided with the United States, its Territories and possessions, based on the construction of the original title I of the Railway Labor Act, and this in spite of the fact that United States chartered airlines have extended air commerce throughout the world. This created extreme confusion in the Air Line Dispatchers Association, which is the only labor organization representing aircraft dispatchers, and which has contracts with Pan American, TWA, Northwest and others.

The aircraft dispatchers employed by Pan American Grace Airways, commonly known as Panagra, sought to join the Association. The Company refused to recognize Air Line Dispatchers Association as the bargaining representative and

the National Mediation Board dismissed the proceeding under section 2 ninth of the Railway Labor Act. The association appealed to the courts seeking a realistic interpretation of the statute. The District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the case as being beyond its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held on appeal, that the courts had jurisdiction but that the board had rightly interpreted the Railway Labor Act and limited its geographical authority to territory no broader than the original Railway Labor Act of 1926, which covered the railroads. The Supreme Court refused certiorari. The Court of Appeals opinion is 189 Fed. 2d 685.

We then sought to amend the Railway Labor Act as the court's opinion practically suggested it. We have already secured the cooperation of other A. F. of L. unions having an interest in our effort and we have the full cooperation of labor organizations representing the pilots and other crew members.

We do not mean to apply United States labor law to groups of native employees hired in foreign countries and working for our airlines. We do not intend to apply it at all to foreign air carriers. The Pilots Association is strong enough to keep and maintain its working agreements with Panagra, Pan American, TWA, etc. and no foreign national pilots fly these planes. Some of the airlines theoretically base all of their pilots inside the United States no matter how long they stay abroad. Our dispatchers are being transferred back and forth from the United States and foreign countries on the usual limited assignment plan of these airlines. A great majority of these men are United States citizens because of the nature of their work requiring close cooperation and personal relationship with the flight crews and since most airlines have found it impossible to successfully train foreign nationals for these important positions. Perhaps between 100 and 150 men in total number is all that is involved with the aircraft dispatchers.

For example, referring to Pan American, it would be impossible to make a labor agreement under English law to cover 7 dispatchers at London; to make one under Indian law to cover 4 dispatchers at New Delhi; or to make one under Japanese law to cover 5 at Tokyo, particularly since our National Mediation Board has ruled that the entire company is a single unit.

We could not legally discriminate between nationalities in labor groups, either here or abroad.

The fundamental situation is that the airlines are subsidized and supported with taxpayers' money. They employ United States citizens for their key positions abroad and then return them periodically. No practical legislation exists permitting effective labor relations between our groups and these companies except by the strong economic force of shutting the airline down to force negotiation of practical contracts. This we have avoided although it has been at times

a tempting solution for us.

In conclusion we respectfully request strengthening of the Civil Aeronautics Act to require United States scheduled air carriers to comply not only with the Railway Labor Act, but to also include employee groups of flight crews and aircraft dispatchers wherever they may be stationed throughout the world.

Senator MONRONEY. I have a request from Mr. Hartman Barber, general representative of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, who wishes to file a statement in behalf of the Brotherhood and asks for time to file.

We will be glad to receive it if it is filed within the next 10 days. (The above-mentioned statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES ON S. 308 AND S. 1119

This statement by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees is directed only to the provision of section 48 of S. 308, which proposes certain amendments to the Railway Labor Act as follows:

"SEC. 48. Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (U. S. C., 1940 edition, title 45, sec. 181) is amended by inserting after the word 'common' the phrase 'or contract'; by inserting at the end of such section a colon and the following proviso: 'Provided, That the terms "employee" or "subordinate official" shall not include any individual having authority, in the interest of a carrier or contractor, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,

« PreviousContinue »