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 dişmissed 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,

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.'" This provision is not contained in S. 1119.

The Brotherhood is the lawful collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act for approximately 10,000 employees embraced within the categories of clerical, office, stores, fleet, and passenger service employment on 5 major trunkline air carriers and 2 other aviation companies. The air carriers involved are Braniff Airways, Capital Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Pan American World Airways, and Western Air Lines. The Brotherhood also represents employees of Air Cargo, a ground service corporation jointly owned by air carriers, and Allied Aviation. This representation is governed by and performed within the framework of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act which is made applicable to common carriers by air engaged in interstate and foreign commerce by title II, section 201 thereof. The Brotherhood therefore has a vital and substantial interest in any proposal to amend the Railway Labor Act. The Brotherhood appreciates this opportunity to make its views known to the committee on the proposed amendment.

Section 48 of S. 308, if enacted into law, would affect the application of the Railway Labor Act to the air transport industry in two ways. (1) It would extend the coverage of the act which is now limited to common carriers by air to include "contract" carriers by air; and (2) It would restrict the coverage of the act so as not to include a large class of employees doing other than routine work. The primary interest of the Brotherhood is in the second part of the proposed amendment, which it must strongly oppose on the grounds set forth below.

The apparent purpose of the restrictive proposal in section 48 is to eliminate so-called supervisory personnel from the scope of the Railway Labor Act. We respectfully submit that no showing has been made which would warrant interference with and restriction of the present definition of "employees" covered by the Railway Labor Act which has existed for nearly three decades.

The definition of the term "employee" for the purpose of specifying the coverage of the Railway Labor Act is derived from section 1, fifth thereof (151 U. S. C. A. 5th) which reads as follows:

"Fifth. The term 'employee' as used herein includes every person in the service of a carrier (subject to its continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service) who performs any work defined as that of an employee or subordinate official in the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission now in effect, and as the same may be amended or interpreted by orders hereafter entered by the Commission pursuant to the authority which is hereby conferred upon it to enter orders amending or interpreting such existing orders: Provided, however, That no occupational classification made by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be construed to define the crafts according to which railway employees may be organized by their voluntary action, nor shall the jurisdiction or powers of such employee organizations be regarded as in any way limited or defined by the provisions of this act or by the orders of the Commission.

"The term 'employee' shall not include any individual while such individual is engaged in the physical operations consisting of the mining of coal, the preparation of coal, the handling (other than movement by rail with standard railroad locomotives) of coal not beyond the mine tipple, or the loading of coal at the tipple."

This definition was continued in pertinent part by the provisions of sections 201 and 202 of the Railway Labor Act which extend the applicability of that act to airline operations. The distinction provided by these definitions is not between supervisory and nonsupervisory employees, as suggested by the proposed amendment, but between executives and officials on the one hand and subordinate officials on the other hand. Persons in the latter category are included within the coverage of the act.

The inclusion of subordinate officials (including supervisory personnel) along with other carrier employees in procedures for the settlement of labor disputes involving rail carriers dates back to the Transportation Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 457). That statute provided an early framework for the settlement of such disputes and section 300 (5) thereof treated subordinate officials as employees for the purpose of the statute. This definition was taken over in section 1 of the original Railway Labor Act which came into effect May 20, 1926 (44. Stat. 577)

and has been continued unchanged through other revisions of the statute during the past 30 years. The definition was made applicable to the airlines when the Railway Labor Act was extended in 1936 to cover employee-management relations in the air transport industry (49 Stat. 1189).

This definition as well as the other basic provisions of the Railway Labor Act was developed in a joint conference between representatives of the principal rail carriers and labor organizations involved and was submitted to the Congress as a joint management-labor proposal.

There thus exists a situation in which labor-management relations in transportation have been built up over a period of 35 years upon the basis that subordinate officials (including supervisory personnel) are to be treated as employees for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act. Countless agreements have been signed, and scores of mediations and arbitrations have been successfully conducted on that basis. During nearly 20 of those years the air transport industry has successfully functioned under the Railway Labor Act as it now stands. In these circumstances a basic change of the kind proposed should be made, if at all, only upon the basis of the strongest kind of showing. Nor should it be made as an incidental part of legislation which in large measure concerns itself with the regulation of the economic and safety aspects of air transportation but only after full consideration of the operation of the Railway Labor Act with hearings devoted solely to that purpose.

It has been suggested that the existing stable situation should be changed because the present coverage of the Railway Labor Act creates administrative and disciplinary problems for the airlines and because the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 attempts to draw a distinction between supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel.

The problem for the airlines is asserted to flow from the fact that a person may be represented by a labor organization who at the same time is a company representative at a station or in a shop, thus giving rise to a divided loyalty or interest. It is therefore argued that such an employee should be deprived of his long standing rights under the Railway Labor Act. In Packard Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 330 U. S. 485 (1947), the United States Supreme Court characterized this argument as follows:

"There is nothing new in this argument. It is rooted in the misconception that because the employer has the right to wholehearted loyalty in the performance of the contract of employment, the employee does not have the right to protect his independent and adverse interest in the terms of the contract itself and the conditions of work," (p. 490).

Moreover, the Railway Labor Act specifically protects the authority of the carrier with respect to its personnel as it makes the act applicable to carrier employees only "subject to its (i. e. the carrier's) continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service."

The fact that the matter has been treated differently in the industrial, nontransportation field by the Labor Management Relations Act is not only of little value as a precedent here, but indeed an argument against the proposed amendment. The handling of labor-management relations in the transportation field has long been recognized as requiring special treatment and procedures different from those applied to industry in general. It is for this reason that railway and airline labor-management problems have continued to be covered by a separate statute which differs in many vital respects from the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act. The emphasis in the Railway Labor Act is on voluntary procedures, while the emphasis in the National Labor Relations Act is on compulsory decision of labor issues by a Government agency. This difference is strongly indicative of a greater maturity in labor relations in the transportation field, with less of acrimonious strife and sharply divided loyalties than may be experienced in other areas of activity. When the air transport industry was beginning its great expansion in the 1930's, Congress believed that its labor situation and the problems thereof were more closely akin to those existing in the railroad field than in the industrial field and so placed airline labor-management relations under the Railway Labor Act. The wisdom of this choice is evidenced by two decades of harmonious labor-management relations in the air transport industry during which period the industry has experienced a minimum of labor difficulties and a phenomenal growth which continues at an accelerated pace. The proponents of section 48 would now borrow from other fields where strife has been much greater than in the air transport industry. This, in our opinion, would represent a backward step rather than progress in airline labor-management relations.

Finally, since the proposed amendment is only to section 201, it would give rise to a precedent of separating the airline industry from the railroads and giving the two industries different treatment within the framework of the Railway Labor Act. This can only lead to confusion and disruption of stable labormanagement relations. Organizations such as the Brotherhood represent employees in both the rail and air transport fields. Such representation is governed by one statute with the same basic features. If this 1 statute is now in substance to be split in 2, the advantages of uniformity disappear. If, on the other hand, a proposal such as the present one is to lead to a revision of the coverage of the statute in both the rail and the air transport field, it clearly gives rise to problems of such scope that it should be considered only as a separate piece of legislation after full hearings and consideration with respect thereto.

Senator MONRONEY. The next witness is Mr. Ramsay Potts, president of the Independent Military Air Transport Association.

You may proceed, Mr. Potts. We appreciate your coming before the committee and giving us the benefit of your views.

STATEMENT OF RAMSAY POTTS, PRESIDENT, INDEPENDENT MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. POTTS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come here and make a statement on behalf of our member carriers.

I have just come back from a week in Nevada where I participated in Operation Miss Cue. We went out into the desert 4 times early in the morning and 4 times we had to come back; but the exercise did impress one thing on me, and that is that if we have an atomic war or a hydrogen war, we are certainly going to need the airlift resources of all of the carriers in this country, both to conduct the war and to help in any emergency conduct of aiding cities in distress, speeding supplies to vital points, and so on.

represent and speak for the member carriers of the Independent Military Air Transport Association, otherwise known as IMATA. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on S. 1119, introduced by Senator Magnuson, and S. 308, introduced by Senator Bricker.

We believe that these bills contain desirable features but that additional amendment is needed to achieve the goal of a stable but dynamic air transportation industry that can serve the best interest of our commerce and national defense.

With the lapse of time and with changing conditions in the economy and the air transportation industry, the basic act of 1938 naturally requires continuing amendment. We believe these changing conditions can be met by the amendment process rather than by a complete rewriting of the act, but since the proposed amendments create an essentially new status for the independent carriers, our members have more than a normal industry interest in this legislation.

The member carriers of our association are as follows: Aerovias Sud Americana, Inc., St. Petersburg, Fla.; All American Airways, Inc., Miami, Fla.; American Air Export and Import Co., Miami, Fla.; American Flyers Airline Corp., Fort Worth, Tex.; Associated Air Transport, Inc., Miami, Fla.; California Eastern Airways, Inc., Oakland, Calif.; Capitol Airways, Inc., Nashville, Tenn.; the Flying Tiger Line, Inc., Burbank, Calif.; Overseas National Airways, Oakland, Calif.; Purdue Aeronautics Corporation, Lafayette, Ind.;