dent to fill a vacancy on this Board on Friday, February 13, 1948, and I was confirmed by the Senate on March 2. I mentioned the 13th because I was born on the 13th. I served on that Board since my confirmation and was renominated and reappointed for a 3-year term beginning the 1st of February of this year.

Mr. MURDOCK. Does the President in making the appointment designate the chairman?

Mr. Scort. Under the act we designate or select our own chairman, and in recent years we have rotated the position of chairman.

Mr. MURDOCK. You had never represented, I take it, either labor unions or a carrier?

Mr. SCOTT. I had had no experience in these labor disputes prior to going into Government service. I was just in the general practice of civil law.

Mediation proceedings commenced in Chicago, Ill., the full Board participating, on January 16, 1950, and continued until February 14, 1950. On that date, the mediation conferences having failed to produce a settlement, the National Mediation Board proffered arbitration of the controversy under the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Railway Labor Act. On the same date, February 14, 1950, the carriers, acting through their three regional conference committees, agreed to arbitration, but the two organizations, the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, rejected arbitration under the act.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, what do you mean by saying that the National Mediation Board proffered arbitration? Do you mean that you offered your services as arbitrators or that you recommended that they arbitrate?

Mr. SCOTT. We are charged under the law, when our services have failed in an effort to resolve the dispute by agreement, to proffer arbitration to the parties. We are also charged under the law to urge the parties to arbitrate their disputes.

Mr. MURDOCK. In such arbitration would the Board itself act as arbitrators?

Mr. Scort. No. If the parties agree to arbitrate, they first have an opportunity to undertake to agree upon a neutral. Failing to do that, the Mediation Board will appoint a neutral. The members of this board, and the same for our staff members, never serve in the capacity of arbitrator or referee or undertake in any way to try to make a determination of these issues. We seek through our mediatory and conciliatory services to bring the parties together in agreement. Failing to do that, in arbitration proceedings, the issues are determined by a neutral, who is either agreed upon by the parties or named by our board to sit with the party members.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, are you implying that there is anything wrong with acting as a mediator and as an arbitrator in the same dispute?

Mr. Scorт. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong about it, Counsel, but rule 1, page 1, in the book, keeps the two services very distinct. Mediation is one thing. To sit as an arbitrator or referee is another thing.

Mr. MURDOCK. Why is it so important to keep the two distinct? Mr. Scort. In deciding these issues in dispute, which more often are quite controversial, obviously the decision of the referee or the

neutral is going to be displeasing to one side or the other, if not both, and it is a very quick way for a mediator to lose the confidence that he has tried to acquire of one party or the other if he sets himself up as judge of the issues in dispute.

Mr. MURDOCK. You would then regard it as a bad practice for a mediator to act also as an arbitrator?

Mr. SCOTT. As a bad practice; yes, sir.

The two organizations set a strike date for February 27, 1950. The threatened traffic interruption was reported to the President of the United States by the National Mediation Board, as provided in section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, and on February 24, 1950, the President issued an Executive order creating an emergency board. This action had the effect of maintaining the status quo pending consideration of the issues in the dispute, and the rendition of its report to the President. This Emergency Board commenced its hearings in Chicago, Ill., on March 2, 1950, and these hearings were concluded on May 9, 1950. The report of the Emergency Board to the President was filed on June 15, 1950.

The most important matters covered by the recommendations of the Emergency Board are the following:

EMPLOYEES' PROPOSALS

1. Basic 5-day, 40-hour week: The Board recommended the establishment of a 5-day workweek for all yard service employees effective October 1, 1950, but not with 48 hours' pay. Instead, the Board recommended retention of current rates of pay plus a wage increase of 18 cents per hour.

2. Overtime pay: The Board recommended that all service in excess of five 8-hour days (40 hours) in a week be paid for at the rate of time and one-half.

3. Sunday and holiday work: The Board recommended that the request of the organizations for payment for Sunday and holiday work at rate of time and one-half be withdrawn.

4. Graduated rates of pay, all classes, based on engine weights on drivers: The Board recommended that this request be withdrawn. 5. Restoration of standard rates as between territories: The Board recommended that the rates paid in the western territory be increased 1 percent, to equalize them with the eastern and southeastern rates, and that rules preventing doubleheading of engines on trains in the western territory be abandoned.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, for the record what generally is meant by the Western territory?

Mr. Scorт. That is generally the mountain section, the western. section of the United States.

Mr. MURDOCK. What is meant by the southeastern?

Mr. SCOTT. The Southeast is along the Atlantic seaboard and the Atlantic coast, from about Washington district on south.

Mr. MURDOCK. And the East, I take it, would be the balance of the country, is that right?

Mr. Scorr. The East is the balance. The Southwest roads, what we might call the southwest territory, are tied into the West. The roads are largely transcontinental.

Mr. MURDOCK. What is meant by doubleheading of engines?

Mr. SCOTT. Sir?

Mr. MURDOCK. What is meant by doubleheading of engines?

Mr. SCOTT. That is using two locomotives.

Mr. MURDOCK. I suppose that would be necessary—

Mr. SCOTT. In mountain terrain; yes, sir.

I might add here I have been advised by Mr. Bickers that the regions closely approximate the ICC designation of territories.

No. 6. Reduction of mileage, passenger basic day: The Board recommended that this request be withdrawn.

Mr. MURDOCK. That would be the reduction from 150 miles to 100 miles?

Mr. Scort. To 100 miles; yes, sir.

No. 7. Payment of time and one-half for passenger-service overtime: The Board recommended that this request be withdrawn.

Mr. MURDOCK. That would mean the road-service employees in passenger service would continue to be the only road-service employees who received straight time?

Mr. SCOTT. Pro rata time, yes, sir; and the Board recommended that that request be withdrawn.

No. 8. Payment of expenses when away from home terminal: The Board recommended that this request be withdrawn.

Recommendations were made on all other points in the requests of the two organizations, but the above are the most important. The emergency board also made the following recommendations in regard to the most important issues in the counterproposals made by the carriers:

CARRIERS' PROPOSALS

1. Interdivisional runs: The Board recommended the elimination of restrictions on the establishment of interdivisional runs upon fair and reasonable notice, together with provisions for equitable distribution of work and the protection of seniority rights.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, that would mean, I take it, that the carrier would then have the right, without negotiation with the employees, to change divisional points and to extend divisional runs.

Mr. Scort. You are right, sir. That was the Board's recommendation.

Mr. MURDOCK. That is now a subject of collective bargaining between the two, is it not?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

No. 2. Pooling cabooses: The Board recommended that pooling of cabooses be permitted, with proper provisions by the carriers for locker space and other accommodations at terminals for employees who now have assigned cabooses.

3. Coupling and uncoupling air hose: The Board recommended that present rules prohibiting trainmen and yardmen from coupling and coupling air, steam, or signal hose where carmen are available be redefined and limited to situations where carmen are immediately available; further, that any arbitrary payments for such service be limited to the member of the crew performing the work.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Scott, what, in your opinion, would be the difference between a carman being available or being immediately available?

Mr. SCOTT. That is a difficult question, sir. The referees on the first division of the National Board of Adjustment have passed on many situations where they have held that they were not available, others that they were available. That is what determines whether or not the rule applies.

Mr. MURDOCK. It would be the inevitable tendency of this proposed change in the rule that more trainmen and yardmen would be used in coupling and uncoupling hose, is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. I didn't quite get that question, Mr. Murdock.

Mr. MURDOCK. I say it is apparently the intention of this proposal to make it easier for the carrier to employ trainmen and yardmen in the coupling of hose, is that correct?

Mr. ScoTT. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. So the adoption of this proposal would mean inevitably, I take it, that more trainmen and yardmen would be used in coupling and uncoupling of hoses rather than limiting that work to carmen, is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. I believe it is difficult for me to answer that because I may not understand your question. If the 'recommendation were followed here

The CHAIRMAN. Will you bring the microphone a little closer to you? It is difficult to hear you.

Mr. SCOTT. I can talk a little louder, Senator. I was afraid I was talking too loud.

We have had that question passed on by referees of the first division, and various of their interpretations I might say have liberalized the rules. One particular interpretation that I recall was the award of a referee holding that even in a large yard, 5 or 6 or 7 miles, if carmen are employed in the north end of the yard, they are available at the south end of the yard to do the coupling, and therefore if yardmen couple at the south end of the yard they are entitled, in the absence of an arbitrary, to a day's pay.

Another award held, where the language of the rule there was carmen employed, that if carmen were employed, say, on the day shift, they would be available at night to make the coupling, and if yardmen coupled at night even when they were not on duty, they nevertheless were employed and the yardmen were entitled to the day's pay on the arbitrary. The arbitrary comes into play only where the rule-in the absence of a rule negotiating the arbitrary the penalty is a day's pay. The third award that I am mindful of now construes what the word "point" means. The rule said at points where carmen are available. In that case the referee held that if yardmen were available in a yard, say, in a given city, they were then available at that point even though they were not employed in another yard. So apparently the Board in its recommendation had in mind what they called clarifying that rule or redefining it, trying to limit it to where carmen were immediately available. But that would have to be negotiated because you can see yourself that the words are too ambiguous and uncertain. Mr. MURDOCK. Apparently it was the purpose of this rule to prevent the carrier from using trainmen and yardmen for coupling and uncoupling hoses if carmen were available.

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. And if he did use trainmen and yardmen when carmen were available, then he had to pay a penalty wage, is that correct?

Mr. SCOTT. Right; yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. The effect of this proposal of the Board, I take it, would be to make the carrier less liable for payment of that penalty

wage.

Mr. SCOTT. Right, because it would try to confine the availability to something immediately, and then it went further to suggest that the arbitrary be paid to only one member of the crew that coupled the hose. It now is paid to the full crew.

Mr. MURDOCK. I see. Do you know the history of that rule? Do you know why it was originally negotiated?

Mr. SCOTT. I can't say that I do, Mr. Murdock.

Mr. MURDOCK. Would it be a reasonable assumption that it was negotiated with a view to distributing work among carmen and yardmen equally or equitably? The tendency would be to spread the work, would it not?

Mr. SCOTT. I think it would obviously be to define the work and see that the work that belonged to the particular craft was performed by that craft.

Mr. MURDOCK. In times, say, of widespread unemployment this rule would have a tendency to make work available to more people? Mr. SCOTT. To more carmen; yes, sir.

No. 4. More than one class of road service: The Board recommended that where more than one class of road service is performed in a tour of duty, the compensation for the entire time will be one day at the highest rate applicable for any class of service performed.

Mr. MURDOCK. What is the present rule, Mr. Scott?

Mr. SCOTT. In many instances they pay an additional day at the rate for the work performed rather than the combination of service rule that limits it to the highest rate of pay of the service performed in the combined service.

Mr. MURDOCK. As I understand it, under the present rule if an employee is engaged in one class of service a part of the day and in another class of service the other part of the day, he is paid an additional day's pay. Is that right?

Mr. SCOTT. That is right. If he is engaged in through freight and did some work-train service, he would be entitled to a day's pay at through pay plus a day's pay at work-train rate.

Mr. MURDOCK. In that case he would be entitled to 2 days' pay.

Mr. SCOTT. I might say that also involves many controversial questions which are the subject of awards by referees in the first division. I refer to the first division because that is the division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board which handles the train and service organization cases for these four brotherhoods.

Mr. MURDOCK. Isn't it apparent, Mr. Scott, that this rule again is presumably intended and has the effect of making work available to more people?

Mr. Scort. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is it a fair assumption that that was the reason why the rule was originally negotiated?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. Of course, you are referring to the rule itself. The recommendation obviously would have the effect of relieving the