Page images
PDF
EPUB

members of the committee had considered this fully and were conscious of our responsibility and the authority delegated to us as mediators under the Railway Labor Act, and in the light of their consideration still desired our testimony, it was then that we proceeded without any further expression of desire to discuss it with the committee.

I thank you very much.
Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
We will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m. the committee recessed until 10 o'clock a. m., Friday, March 16, 1951.)

LA BOR DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILROAD CARRIERS AND

FOUR OPERATING RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1951

a

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the Old Supreme Court room, the Capitol, Senator Wayne Morse presiding.

Present: Senator Morse (presiding).

Also present: Herman Lazarus and Tom Shroyer, of the professional staff of the committee; and Ray R. Murdock, counsel to the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations.

Senator MORSE (presiding). The hearing will come to order.

The acting chairman wishes to make an announcement in regard to the procedure of the committee for the rest of the day. We will reconvene at 2:30 this afternoon and I have explained to Mr. Loomis that we will run until 4:45, which will give him an opportunity to make a train engagement that he has. The chairman will notify the parties as to when we will proceed the first part of next week. The acting chairman will not be able to be here until Wednesday after today. Therefore, he will proceed this morning to ask certain questions that he wishes to get answers to from this witness prior to the week-end adjournment, after which Mr. Loomis will then return to his main statement. I wanted to point up two things this week before I leave. One is the matter we were discussing yesterday concerning the brotherhoods' reactions to paragraph 11 of carriers' exhibit No. 8. I want the witness in his own way and in his own time later to give the carriers' point of view on this observation of the acting chairman, but it would appear from the record to date that it is the arbitration provision of carriers' exhibit No. 8 that seems to be one of the main causes for the rejection of the agreement of December 21 by the general chairmen of the various brotherhoods.

Of course we still have to complete the record on the part of the carriers in regard to their point of view concerning whether or not the agreement of December 21 was a firm agreement in contrast with the insistence of the witnesses for the brotherhoods that not only the White House representative, Dr. Steelman, but the carriers, too, knew or should have known that the brotherhoods' representatives are never bound in negotiations without their tentative agreements being subject to ratification.

I do want to get in the record later on today the carriers' point of view with regard to that representation. What I do think is important is that this committee drew together here what the record shows are the differences that are blocking the early settlement of this case.

[ocr errors]

The acting chairman is satisfied from the record to date that paragraph 11 of the memorandum of agreement of December 21 is at least one of the explanations that the brotherhoods give which prevents settlement of the case. Depending on the point of view, it may be rationalization, it may be hindsight, or it may be an alibi. Opinions can differ as to motivation. I have to take the record on the basis of the testimony that has been given, and it adds up to me to a conclusion on their part that they are just not going to ratify an agreement that gives as broad an arbitration authority on rules as paragraph 11 gives.

The next thing I want to raise is the question of financial differences between the parties. I would like to take up that subject now. It may be out of order as far as your preparation is concerned, Mr. Loomis, but you take whatever time you need to organize your papers so we can discuss that together now.

Would you tell the committee what you consider to be the financial differences that separates the parties now as far as agreement on financial arrangements is concerned? What are the unions asking for in contrast with what the carriers have been willing to give them by their approval of the agreement of December 21 ?

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL P. LOOMIS, CHAIRMAN, THE ASSOCIATION

OF WESTERN RAILWAYS, CHICAGO, ILL.-Resumed Mr. LOOMIS. All right, Senator. You would like to take up the financial matters. That is your last question.

Senator MORSE. Yes; for the reason that I have certain examination that I want to conduct on that, and if we don't do it now I may not be back before you have left the witness stand, and I want to avoid as much as possible recalling witnesses that we do not have to call back, because the first part of the week other members of the committee and general counsel will bave to take over the examination until I can get back.

Mr. Loomis. Let us go into the wage question, then, Senator. I will take this up seriatim in detail.

First it will be my purpose to show the differences between the Emergency Board report and the memorandum of agreement of December 21.

The summary of the recommendations of the Emergency Board start at page 167 of the report. The first one recommends that the daily earnings minimum guaranty of 20 cents a day be put into the basic rate, the 212-cents-an-hour increase.

I should say there is no dispute between the parties about that.

The second item of a wage nature, laying aside now the 18-cent increase but taking up more or less minor details first, there appears on page 168 as item 2 the car-retarder operators' differential. There is no difference between the parties as to that.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Loomis, I wonder if you would explain briefly what that is.

Mr. LOOMIS. That simply means that the rate of car-retarder operators will be 80 cents above the basic daily rate for yard conductors. They will be paid 80 cents more than yard conductors.

Mr. MURDOCK. And the function of a car retarder is what?

Mr. LOOMIS. A car-retarder operator is in a so-called retarder yard. It is a set-up whereby there are gadgets, for want of a better term,

along the tracks which will stop cars as they are going down into the yard tracks. In other words, there is a hump at the top of the yard, and the hump engine pushes the cars over that hump. Then they go down onto various tracks in the yards. There are devices along the tracks to slow the cars and ultimately to stop the cars. The carretarder operator is in a tower with a series of levers by which he can operate the so-called retarders and also place the cars on the various tracks in the storage yard.

The third item is on page 169, item 5, the footboard yardmasters' differential. There is no disagreement between the parties as to that. For the benefit of the record, a footboard yardmaster, as the term is generally used, is where under a special rule in most schedules that have footboard yardmasters, the yard conductor performs certain yardmaster service during his tour of duty as conductor. It may be in a very small yard where there is no yardmaster, and the yard conductor acts in performing yardmaster's duties and is referred to as the footboard yardmaster because he rides the footboard of the switch engine in switching the cars.

The next item is item 10 on page 168, the United States mailhandling allowance. I believe there is no difference between the parties as to that.

Those are the four items that were intended to be covered by paragraph 4 of the memorandum of agreement of December 21.

On the general wage issues the Emergency Board recommended nothing in the way of wage increases for road-service employees. The memorandum of agreement provided for an increase of 5 cents an hour for road employees effective October 1, and an additional 5 cents effective January 1. In other words, whereas the Emergency Board recommended nothing, the memorandum of agreement provides for a 10-cent increase. Under the escalator clause, on the basis of the most recent cost-of-living index of 181.6, road-service employees will have 5 cents more coming to them April 1 of this year, or a total of 15 cents. The base index is 176. The index now stands at 181.6. Although the governing index will be the February 15 index which comes out the latter part of this month. That may be 182. If it is between 181 and 182 they would have 5 cents coming April 1. If it should be between 182 and 183 they would have 6 cents coming April 1, et cetera.

Mr. MURDOCK. That is on the basis of 1 cent per point?

Mr. Loomis. That is correct. On the basis of the existing index of 181.6 they would have 5 cents, or a total of 15 cents.

With respect to the yard service employees the Presidential Board recommended for yard service employees an increase of 18 cents an hour. The memorandum of agreement of December 21 provides for an increase of 25 cents an hour, and it also provides that if and when the 40-hour week actually becomes effective, yard service employees should receive 4 cents more, or a total of 29 cents. Likewise, the cost-of-living index as it now stands will produce an additional 5 cents for yard service employees on April 1, or a total of 30 cents an hour, or when the 40-hour week becomes effective, 34 cents. These adjustments are made quarterly, April 1.

The next one would be July 1. The next one would be October 1.

I might say at this point also for the record that on Wednesday afternoon the eastern and western railroads reached settlements with

the United Transport Service Employees, CIO, which represents generally the station porters. I should say they represent them on some roads. The clerks represent them on other roads. They reached a settlement practically identical with the nonoperating employees agreement.

As I stated the other day, as a result of the settlements with the Switchman's Union of North America, the Railroad Yardmasters of America, the United Transport Service Employees, and the 15 cooperating railway labor organizations which represent the nonoperating employees, together with the White House agreement of December 21, and based on the cost-of-living index as it now stands, the annual cost to the railroads on and after April 1 will be approximately $530,000,000. I want to point out that in our opinion the willingness of the industry to agree to any such increases in operating costs is a complete answer to any charge that the carriers are unwilling to bargain or to make concessions to their employees.

Now with respect to the present differences

Senator MORSE. I think that is a very important point, Mr. Loomis, because what I would like to get into this record is a very clear statement on the part of the carriers in answer to what I think is the question of the public: What is the difference? How far apart are these two sides? How serious is this difference? I think the public wants to know what the financial difference is.

Mr. Loomis. That would be pretty difficult to say. Mr. Shields, as I recall it, put into the record a B of LE proposal made early in February. I seem to be having some difficulty finding it.

I think I can piece them together, Senator, according to our understanding. We never had copies of it.

(Document handed to Mr. Loomis by Mr. O'Brien.)

The proposal made by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers appears in Mr. Shields statement at page 39. That proposition in so far as wages is concerned, for yard service employees was 23 cents on October 1, which is included in the White House memorandum of agreement, 2 cents an hour January 1, 1951, which is also included in the White House agreement, 2 cents per hour. I beg your pardon. January 1 he proposed 212 cents instead of 2 cents. Then it proposes 2 cents March 1, 1951. For a total increase of 271/2 cents per hour. Then when the 40-hour, 5-day week is made effective. increase the rates further by 612 cents, making a total increase of 3+ cents. The average for all employees is 31 cents. The engineers being somewhat higher rated, their average alone would be 34 cents.

As to road men, Mr. Shields proposed 5 cents

Senator MORSE. May I ask a question about yard rates, first, Mr. Loomis? Mr. Shields' proposal adds up, then, to about 34 cents as to yard rates, according to paragraph 2 of this memorandum.

Mr. LOOMIS. Thirty-four cents, yes.

Senator MORSE. What does it come out to, what figure, as far as the memorandum agreement of December 21 is concerned? What did he get, in other words?

Mr. LOOMIS. Disregarding the escalator clause, the memorandum of agreement of December 21 would come out at-compared with the figure of 34 cents-would come out at 29 cents. Senator MORSE. So you say on that figure you are 5 cents apart? Mr. LOOMIS. That is correct.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »