Senator MORSE. Mr. Shields, the last two sentences of this union exhibit 3 read as follows:

This last paragraph referred particularly to the rules. The rules will be Steelman's interpretations which are pretty much the same as the railroads'.

Does that mean anything more or less than that in the judgment of the writer of this memorandum he was inclined to believe that Steelman would be more favorable to the carriers' position than to the union's position on the rule issue, any more than that?

Mr. SHIELDS. Frankly, no. I don't think that we could assert any more to that statement than you have indicated. It only represents one man's opinion, I assume. I have not attempted to attribute this same feeling with respect to Dr. Steelman's partiality to any other carrier or any member of the carriers' conference committee. Senator MORSE. And when union exhibit 3 says:

We will get rule changes-will have to write after January 10. Steelman is in favor of our rules and he will write.

Is that subject to any other interpretation than this, that the writer of this memorandum is inclined to believe that Mr. Steelman was more in favor of the carriers' position on the rules than he was of the union's, rather than an interpretation that it meant that his acceptance of the position of arbitrator under the agreement of December 21 represented any subrosa commitment or understanding on his part that in that capacity the carriers would eventually win the rules issue? Mr. SHIELDS. Well, about the most I can see out of it would seem that this particular representative of this carrier who reported his understanding here, obviously thought that Dr. Steelman was in favor of the carriers' rules and there is an obvious inference there in the last phrase, "and he will write," that having been in favor of the rules as this person avers. Dr. Steelman is, that they could expect a very favorable settlement on the rules.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Shields, do you not think that it is quite probable that Dr. Steelman might be the victim of this memorandum having

attributed to him motivations and commitments that are most unfair and grow out only of someone's assumption that he would be more favorable to the carriers' position than the union's position on the rules issued.

Mr. SHIELDS. That is possible and that is one thing that influenced me to refer to this memorandum to Dr. Steelman on the first conference that we had after we came back to Washington. There is always that possibility.

Senator MORSE. But your possession of the memorandum, as it came to you enclosed in Mr. Turner's letter of December 22, however, filled you with sufficient fear as to what the outcome of the rules issue might be if the Steelman agreement of December 21 was ratified, that you were very glad that the general chairmen had rejected the agreement? Mr. SHIELDS. That is right.

Senator MORSE. And it is your testimony that if they had rejected the agreement you would have felt compelled then to have read to them this memorandum which has become union exhibit 3 in this case and then, on the basis of the memorandum, recommended that the agreement be rejected?

Mr. SHIELDS. I wouldn't say, Senator, that my apprehension of the final disposition of the rules would have influenced me to have based

81733-51-14

my judgment or my fear or apprehension of what might happen to the rules entirely on this. While certainly this is something that could increase the apprehension I already had, I didn't have any intention of referring this matter, this memorandum, to the general chairmen's association. But in the event that a majority of the general chairmen had been inclined to look favorably on this, then I think it would have been my responsibility to have warned them against the possibility of entrusting their rules to anyone as the sole arbiter regardless of whether it was Dr. Steelman or anyone else, because our people have been reluctant, and so far have refused to negotiate, to arbitrate, rules of that character.

Senator MORSE. Now, as I understood your testimony you have testified that in your opinion on the basis of your negotiation with Dr. Steelman that when it comes to matters of rules he has shown an indication that he probably would be inclined to go further in the direction of the carriers' position on rules than in the direction of the union's position?

Mr. SHIELDS. That has been my frank statement to you, Senator, that because of what I have seen in the negotiations I am inclined to believe that he might. Now, I wouldn't say he would do that just because he wanted to favor the carriers, but rather because of a lack of knowledge of the rules and a lack of knowledge of the impact that his particular version of the rules might have on our people.

Senator MORSE. Which was not implied in my question, that you thought he would do it as a matter of bias or prejudice, but in your negotiation with him you had come to the conclusion that he would incline more to the carriers' position than the position of the brotherhood?

Mr. SHIELDS. That is right, sir.

Senator MORSE. Well, now, you reached that conclusion. Do you not think that the carrier representatives in those negotiations would be equally able to reach a similar conclusion?

Mr. SHIELDS. They might be; they might be.

Senator MORSE. That is, if he left you with the impression that he was more inclined toward the carriers' position on rules that they would be just as capable of interpreting his attitude as you would be? Mr. SHIELDS. I think there would be no doubt about that, Senator. Senator MORSE. Has it not been your experience in negotiations, dealing with mediators and arbitrators, that you come to recognize that they, being human, do have certain judgments in matters of labor policies, is that not true?

And that when Mr. X or Mr. Y or Mr. Z is suggested for mediation or arbitration, is it not rather common conversation among the representatives either of labor or of management to say, "Well, now, on the basis of such a decision he has rendered, or such a case that he has mediated, he is rather sympathetic toward A issue, or B issue, or C issue." Do you not kind of peg these mediators and arbitrators, so to speak, in regard to their attitude toward certain labor issues?

Mr. SHIELDS. I think there is a disposition to that, Senator.

Senator MORSE. And that sometimes in a labor dispute you have one kind of an issue you are more inclined to accept X as an arbitrator or mediator for that case than would be the case if you had another kind of an issue involved?

Mr. SHIELDS. I think that is quite right.

Senator MORSE. You do not think Dr. Steelman would be any exception insofar as both carriers and brotherhoods have definite ideas as to what his general point of view would be on certain issues?

Mr. SHIELDS. I don't think so.

Senator MORSE. And that when we study union exhibit 3 from that standpoint-may I say this, that I am perfectly satisfied no union or no employee could get Dr. Steelman to enter into any agreement to mediate or arbitrate a dispute with any advance commitment as to the position he is going to take on any issue. I want to say also that there are men in this room who on occasion, when certain issues have been before brotherhoods or unions that they have represented, undoubtedly said, "Keep Morse out of that case."

Mr. SHIELDS. I don't recall of hearing any such statements, Senator. Senator MORSE. Because, "Look at these decisions that he has already decided," and it is perfectly proper that they should so advise a client.

Mr. SHIELDS. Sure.

Senator MORSE. So I wonder as I look into the possible implications of this memorandum if we are not dealing with a situation here where at least this carrier representative was of the opinion that it was a pretty good agreement as far as the selection of an arbitrator was concerned, because they thought that Steelman would be more favorable to their position on rules than to the union's position on rules simply because of their observation of his work and of his comments in mediation rather than indicating that it was fixed, so to speak, that he would give them a decision on rules.

Mr. SHIELDS. I don't have any intention, Senator, of trying to leave the impression with your committee that this has any of the elements of the so-called fix.

Senator MORSE. I did not think you did but the memorandum might be subject to the interpretation by some if we did not go through this laborious process that I am going through.

Mr. SHIELDS. That is quite right.

Senator MORSE. I am not indicating at all either that if you had a memorandum such as this in your possession and you honestly believed that the carriers thought it was "duck soup," so to speak, they could proceed with the agreement of December 21 because they thought that they had an arbitrator in all good faith and conscience who was more inclined to their point of view than to the other fellow's point of view and they would welcome the agreement. I could well understand that if you had that here you would not welcome the agreement, but that is an entirely different thing from the impression, and you very honestly said you do not intend to leave the impression, that there was anything improper in the selection of Dr. Steelman as mediator and arbitrator toward the carrier. I understand your point is that one reason you felt this agreement ought to be rejected is because he was not the arbitrator that you wanted to bind yourself to for a 3-year period to make decisions on rules.

Mr. SHIELDS. That is quite right, Senator.

Senator MORSE. And your general chairmen, after they got through discussing it, did not want to bind themselves to Steelman for 3 years. Of course, they have always been rather cranky of the procedure that both parties ought to select the arbitrators and not appointing him by one. I am assuming that there was this right to treat this agree

ment as a tentative agreement subject to ratification by the brotherhoods. Then your general chairmen certainly had the right to pass judgment on Dr. Steelman for that section that provided Dr. Steelman as the arbitrator for 3 years and decide whether or not they wanted to object to the agreement on that score, among others, or on that score alone. In my view, if it was a tentative agreement and not a binding one, it would be a great mistake to try to force them to take an agree ment that they did not want.

I am sorry to take this time, Mr. Chairman. I think it is perfectly all right to have this memorandum in the record for what value it may be, as exhibit No. 3. I think it is a rather interesting exhibit in that it has shown, as indicated by the witness himself, how these matters of fear and the reaction of individuals play a part in labor negotiations, because you cannot settle labor negotiations satisfactorily unless there is mutuality of confidence on both sides and the man who sits in the middle and has to render a decision.

If I am wrong, Mr. Shields can correct me, but my impression of his testimony is that it boils down to about this: That this was another bit of evidence that satisfied them that they did not want Steelman as an arbitrator in the final agreement, not because they raised any question as to the propriety of his conduct, but they felt that he had a bias, shall we say, or an attitude on rules, that would not give them what they would consider to be an impartial decision on the merits of the case, as they believe the merits of the case to be.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you, Senator. I think it is entirely proper that we should have this thorough analysis of the matter. I think that your cross-examination has been very helpful in that direction. I think it was time well spent.

Mr. SHIELDS. I want to say for the people that I represent, and I think on behalf of the other interested organizations, that I appreciate the questions from the Senator from Oregon and I place particular value on them because of his wide experience in dealing with these

matters.

In summing the whole matter up, I will say that the Senator has quite correctly appraised our reaction to this situation and particularly to this memorandum.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Shields, do you know who Mr. S. H. Pulliam is? Mr. SHIELDS. No, sir; except, as I stated awhile ago, it is my information he is a superintendent of the Huntington division. I can check that and determine it definitely. I understand now that Mr. Pulliam is C. & O. general superintendent of personnel, with offices in Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. MURDOCK. Offices in Cleveland?

Mr. SHIELDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. You do not know the address, do you?

Mr. SHIELDS. We will arrange to get it for you.

Immediately after adjournment of the Association of General Chairmen's meeting on December 29, 1950, I released to the press and to radio stations the following statement:

The general chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on practically all railroads in the United States were in session in Cleveland, December 28 and 29.

They fully analyzed the Washington memorandum of December 21 and have instructed the grand chief and his negotiating committee to go back to Washington to negotiate the terms of that memorandum into a more favorable settlement.

Meetings of the chairman's associations of the B. of L. F. and E. and the B. of R. T. were then scheduled to be held in Cleveland during the following week, and of the O. of R. C. in St. Louis on Sunday, the 7th of January 1951. When results of those meetings were known, on January 8, 1951, I sent the following letter to Dr. Steelman:

Dr. JOHN R. STEELMAN,

Assistant to the President,

The White House, Washington, D. C.

JANUARY 8, 1951.

DEAR DR. STEELMAN: This is to officially inform you that as a result of a 2-day analysis and discussion of the memorandum submitted by you to Presidents D. B. · Robertson, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; R. O. Hughes, Order of Railway Conductors; W. P. Kennedy, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the undersigned, on December 21, 1950, to be used as a basis for a final settlement of the existing disputes between these organizations and the American railroads, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers committees have voted unanimously to instruct the undersigned and our negotiating committee to make arrangements to resume conference with you and the carriers at the earliest possible date, for the purpose of effecting a final settlement of the matters at issue.

For perfectly obvious reasons, I sincerely regret that there has been so much newspaper discussion of reasons why the several organizations were not satisfied with the agreement, as well as other comments upon the whole general situation, which I believe were untimely. In any event, I am still hopeful that in the next conference a way will be developed to more satisfactorily dispose of the issues than was contained in the December 21 memorandum. After you have had an opportunity to consult with the carriers, will you please inform me of a date for the commencement of conferences?

Very truly yours,

J. P. SHIELDS, Grand Chief Engineer.

On the same day I sent the following joint telegram to the chairmen of the three carrier conference committees:

D. P. LOOMIS,

482 Union Station, Chicago, Ill.

CLEVELAND, January 8, 1951.

C. D. MACKAY,

Southern Railway Building, Washington, D. C.

L. W. HORNING,

466 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.

This is to advise you the B. of L. E. General Chairmen's Association, in session December 28 and 29, analyzed the Washington memorandum dated December 21 and have instructed the undersigned and the B. of L. E. wage-rules committee to arrange to resume conferences with you and Dr. Steelman for purpose of affecting a more satisfactory settlement than was provided for in the above-referred-to memorandum. Dr. Steelman has also been officially informed of this action by our association. Will you please inform me of the earliest date conferences may be resumed on this matter?

Joint Loomis, Mackay, Horning.

J. P. SHIELDS.

No written response has as yet been received to my letter to Dr. Steelman or to my telegram to the carriers. However, on January 11, 1951, Chairman John Thad Scott, Jr., of the National Mediation Board, telephoned me at my Cleveland offices to say that Dr. Steelman was then leaving Washington to be gone several days and had asked Chairman Scott to consult representatives of the organizations concerning a date for a meeting with Dr. Steelman in Washington.