3. Put into effect immediately wage increases for all employees represented in these conferences comparable to those already granted in steel and other industries to employees of similar skill and experience.

Mr. HUGHES. I think that concludes my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes your testimony? Just one question, please.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Hughes, at the hearing yesterday a question came up as to the advisability of having the Interstate Commerce Commission participate in collective bargaining between the carriers and the brotherhoods. I think Mr. Shields expressed strong opposition to that proposal. What would be your views on that?

Mr. HUGHES. I think I can agree with Mr. Shields that I would not want to have the Interstate Commerce Commission participate in the negotiations that might be conducted.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Hughes.

The next witness will be Mr. John Thad Scott, Chairman, Mediation Board.

Senator MORSE. May I make a request, Mr. Chairman, and that is that at a later hearing Mr. Kennedy be recalled for cross-examination. I have to be down to the joint meeting of Armed Services and Foreign Relations this morning to vote on various proposals connected with the Wherry resolution, so I am in a position where I have to make a choice as to which hearing I am going to attend, and it is going to have to be the Foreign Relations and Armed Services this morning. My colleagues on the committee will understand the predicament in which I find myself. I have a series of questions that I want to ask Mr. Kennedy at a later date.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your situation, and he will be recalled to suit your convenience, when you request it.

Senator MORSE. Before I leave, Mr. Chairman, it also will be understood that I will read the testimony of Mr. Scott and the other members of the Mediation Board when they testify and probably ask the committee to have them recalled. I would like to make this request now, that the Mediation Board prepare for this committee a detailed report of the operations of the Railway Mediation Board since the passage of the Railway Labor Act of 1926, setting out the cases in which they have succeeded in reaching mediation agreement and the cases in which they have failed to reach mediation agreement, and bringing us up to date. I will reserve final judgment on the worth and effectiveness of the Mediation Board-and I speak of the Board and not of the individuals because I am not interested in personalities in any of my investigations-but I shall reserve judgment upon the legislative worth of the Mediation Board pending a thorough investigation. I think it is only fair to say that we all, I believe, must take judicial notice that it is an appendage and a surplus institution in window-dressing form that accomplishes no real good as far as settling disputes because the history of the large number of appointments of emergency boards I think speaks for itself and raises a serious question as to whether or not there are needed some amendments to the Railway Labor Act so this Mediation Board may be effective in mediating and settling disputes. I don't think we can justify much longer keeping on the books a board that costs the taxpayers of this country many thousands of dollars but which makes a record of so many failures in settling disputes. To me it has become pretty much

81733-51-19

just a token step in this whole process of settling major labor disputes until we have set up the very undesirable pattern of having most of the major railway disputes go to the White House, where they should never go in the first instance.

I think what I say is certainly not intended as a reflection upon the present personnel of the Mediation Board or the past personnel of the Mediation Board, but a criticism of the law as it is presently phrased in regard to the mediation procedure. I think it is very important that this Mediation Board prepare the kind of detailed study that I am asking for. I want to know just what they have accomplished in settling cases since they were created under the Railway Labor Act of 1926, because I am inclined to think we had better direct some attention to amending the Railway Labor Act to eliminate some of the weaknesses presently in it that seem to make it impossible for this act to really settle disputes before they get to the President of the United States or are turned over by the President to his subordinates. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Your satement will be noted. Mr. Scott, have you been sworn?

Mr. SCOTT. Before being sworn, Mr. Chairman, may I urge and request an opportunity for the Board to appear before your committee in executive session and discuss briefly our situation in regard to testifying on a matter of such serious import as the present dispute?

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is conducting these hearings on the basis of public hearings, and I think the intention of the committee is that the whole proceeding should be public. You may make any statement you wish in opening here with regard to the situation. Mr. SCOTT. Very well, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SCOTT. I do, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, sir.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN THAD SCOTT, JR., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS E. BICKERS, SECRETARY, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

Mr. SCOTT. I should like to make a preliminary statement, Mr. Chairman. I am certain that this committee is well aware of the position of the members of this Board in their effort to resolve these labor disputes, also the responsibility that Congress has imposed upon us. We are just what the name implies, mediators. We have but one commodity to sell the parties, and that is confidence. We must first obtain the confidence of the parties before we have the first tool with which to work. In that respect I am sure that the members of your committee would not ask of us to testify with regard to disputes which have arisen between the parties themselves, the information regarding which we have is strictly confidential in the sense that it was given to us with the purpose and intent that we treat it as such. We would lose our effectiveness, if we have any there. It would destroy this arm of the Government if we violated that confidence, and I am sure that in calling attention to this relationship the members of your committee are more mindful of it than any others in the body of the Senate.

I have a prepared statement covering the factual background of these cases, and, if I may, I should like to read it into the record. It is not lengthy.

The CHAIRMAN. You may do that.

Mr. SCOTT. On March 15, 1949, the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen jointly served notice under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act upon all carriers whose employees in train and yard service-road conductors, road brakemen, flagmen and train baggagemen, and yard foremen, yard helpers, switchtenders, car retarder operators, and certain yardmasters-are represented by the two organizations, of their desire to negotiate a 40-hour week with 48 hours' pay, and time and one-half rates for Sundays and holidays for all classes or crafts of yard-service employees, including affiliated crafts or classes; the establishment of graduated rate of pay tables based on weight on drivers of engines used, in all classes of road and yard service; the restoration of standard wage rates in the western territory; and modification of certain other rules, including reducing the basic passenger day for trainmen from 150 to 100 miles. These proposals of the two organizations were met by counterproposals from the carriers of their desire to change various existing pay provisions, rules, regulations, interpretations, or practices. After meetings of local representatives on the various carriers, conference committees were authorized by the trunk-line carriers in the eastern, western, and southeastern territories to continue negotiations on the national level.

Mr. MURDOCK. May I, for the record, Mr. Scott, ask a question or two here. When you say that the basic passenger day is 150 miles for trainmen, just what is the meaning of that phrase?

Mr. SCOTT. The day is 150 miles or less with a speed basis of 20 miles per hour, which really makes a day of 7 hours and 30 minutes. The day for the engine service employees in passenger service is 100 miles or less, 5 hours or less, on the speed basis of 20 miles per hour. In road freight service the day is 100 miles or less, 8 hours or less, on a speed basis of 1212 miles per hour.

Mr. MURDOCK. If I am correctly informed, this is known as the dual pay system; is that right?

Mr. SCOTT. That is right, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. It means, does it not, that train-service employees are paid either on the basis of the miles run or the hours worked, depending on which pays them most; is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. For example, if they have an 8-hour day and a 100mile day, then the day's work is completed when they have either completed 8 hours of service or have run 100 miles; is that correct? Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. You start, do you not, with some arbitrary speed which is said to be the average speed for the run; is that it?

Mr. SCOTT. That is my understanding, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. Do you know what the standard speed is on American railroads?

Mr. SCOTT. I do not, sir, but the speed basis used for pay purposes is 121⁄2 miles in freight service and 20 miles in passenger service. Mr. MURDOCK. Does it vary from road to road?

Mr. SCOTT. I understand it does, sir, so far as actual speed is concerned. The base speed for pay purposes is uniform.

Mr. MURDOCK. This dual pay system applies to the trainmen and the enginemen, does it not?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. The dual system of pay also affects the time when overtime starts; is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. Right.

Mr. MURDOCK. Do you know offhand the formula which is used to determine when overtime shall start?

Mr. SCOTT. I do not.

Mr. MURDOCK. When does overtime start for a conductor in train service? Is it after 100 miles or after 8 hours?

Mr. SCOTT. In what service, passenger?

Mr. MURDOCK. I was thinking of a conductor, say, in passenger

service.

Mr. SCOTT. My understanding is, after the 7 hours and 30 minutes or the 150 miles.

Mr. MURDOCK. So the overtime for a conductor in passenger service, if I understand you, would start after he had completed either 7 hours and 30 minutes of service or 150 miles.

Mr. SCOTT. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. With respect to an engineman, say, an engineer, as I understand it, his overtime starts when he has completed so many hours and so many miles run.

Mr. SCOTT. That is right, sir; and the engine service employees have 100 miles basic day in passenger service, on a speed basis of 20 miles per hour.

Mr. MURDOCK. What is the basic day in hours for an engineer?

Mr. SCOTT. Five hours arrived at on the speed basis of 20 miles per hour divided into 100.

Mr. MURDOCK. So, far an engineer overtime starts when he has completed 100 miles run or 5 hours of service; is that right? Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. What rate of overtime is the engineman paid when he is working overtime? Does he get straight time?

Mr. Scorr. In passenger service there is pro rata pay.

Mr. MURDOCK. By pro rata do you mean straight time?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. So an engineer in passenger service, after he has completed his basic day and begins to work overtime, is then paid straight time; is that right?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, on a pro rata basis in addition, of course.
Mr. MURDOCK. In addition to this basic wage.

Mr. SCOTT. Basic wage; yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. Just assume a hypothetical case. Assume that the engineer's daily rate for miles run is $8. After he has completed his basic day of 5 hours, say, then he is entitled to $8 in pay; is that right? Mr. Scorr. That is right.

Mr. MURDOCK. Now say he works overtime for an hour, what is he paid for that hour?

Mr. SCOTT. One additional dollar.

Mr. MURDOCK. One dollar. So it is straight time; is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. In passenger service.

Mr. Scorr. Yes, sir, overtime being figured on the basis of oneeighth of the daily rate.

Mr. MURDOCK. What about freight service? What is his overtime

rate?

Mr. SCOTT. My understanding is that it is time and a half, it being generally referred to as three-sixteenths of the daily rate.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is it true that the only employee in the operating road train service who does not get time and a half after his basic day is the employee in passenger service; is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. Passenger train service; yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. What about the yardmen? Do they also operate under this dual system of pay?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. They work on a straight 8-hour day.

Mr. MURDOCK. Straight-time basis; is that right?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. So the dual system only applies to employees who are actually in train service?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. All right.

Mr. Scort. Negotiations opened between representatives of the three carriers' conference committees and the two organizations named above in Chicago, Ill., on September 22, 1949. These conferences terminated on December 14, 1949, without an agreement being reached. The chairmen of the three carriers' conference committees made application for the mediation services of the National Mediation Board on December 15, 1949. This application was docketed as NMB Case A-3290 on December 19, 1949.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, I hate to interrupt you again, but I wonder if you would make a statement for the record as to your experience on the Mediation Board and prior to your service on the Mediation Board, just a brief statement of your experience.

Mr. Scorr. For 25 years-from 1920 until 1943, February 1, 1943, that is approximately 25 years-I engaged in the general practice of law in Houston, Tex. On February 1, 1943, I entered the Government service as senior rulings attorney of the eighth regional National War Labor Board in Dallas, Tex. I served about a year in that capacity and then I was made regional attorney of the National War Labor Board, eighth region. That region composed the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. I served in that capacity until the War Labor Board was terminated, I believe December 31, 1945. Then the following year I served on as regional attorney for the National Wage Stabilization Board, eighth region, with offices in Dallas and covering the same States. That Board was terminated February 1, 1947. The year of 1947 I engaged in general referee and arbitration services. I served two times as referee for the Express Board of Adjustment No. 1, which is a system board set up by the Railway Express Co. and the BRC, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, who represent most of the employees in that service.

I served on one assignment as referee for the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in Chicago, handling a docket principally of ORC and BRT cases. I was nominated by the Presi