Mr. HUGHES. If this committee will now turn to page 170 of the report it will see that the recommendation of the Board was as follows:

INTERDIVISIONAL RUNS

Progress and the forces of competition suggest that restrictions on interdivisional runs be eliminated for both assigned and unassigned services. Equitable distribution of the work would protect seniority rights and the only condition to be exacted should be the giving of fair and reasonable notice.

This recommendation went far beyond the carriers' request, gave the carriers more than they asked, and stated the only condition to be exacted should be the giving of fair and reasonable notice.

The December 21 memorandum is based upon the McDonough Report, regardless of Mr. Loomis' testimony that in offering roadmen an increase in wages they graciously went beyond the report. In June when the McDonough Board made its report the Consumers Price Index stood at 170.2. That index is now 184.2. It should be recalled that the operating organizations have not had a wage increase since October of 1948.

Mr. MURDOCK. Are you going on to another subject now?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, I am.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is it your understanding that the recommendation of the Emergency Board as well as the memorandum of December 21 both removed from the field of collective bargaining an important condition of employment such as the interdivisional run rule? That is a working condition, is it not?

Mr. HUGHES. That s right.

Mr. MURDOCK. Problems of the same sort in other industries would be a proper subject for collective bargaining?

Mr. HUGHES. That is right.

Mr. MURDOCK. It is your contention that the effect of either the Emergency Board report or the memorandum of December 21 would just completely remove that important working condition from the scope of collective bargaining, is that correct?

Mr. HUGHES. I don't know whether to say yes or no to that question, because it virtually took it out of the realm of collective bargaining as I know collective bargaining.

Mr. MURDOCK. At least the memorandum of December 21 specifically provides that that question of interdivisional runs should be settled unilaterally by the carrier, by the employer, is that not so? Mr. HUGHES. That is right.

The willingness of the carriers to discuss a wage increase and to incorporate such an increase into the December 21 memorandum, for roadmen, as well as for yardmen, was to be expected in view of current economic conditions. I do not believe that even the carriers would argue that the operating employees are not entitled to a wage increase at this time.

On December 27, 1950, I had reason to attempt to clarify by letter with Dr. Steelman the savings clause in the December 21 memorandum which would be applicable to the western differential rule, and on January 2, 1951, Mr. O'Neill, member of the National Mediation Board, in a long-distance phone call to me at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and apparently in reply to my letter to Dr. Steelman which was never otherwise answered, stated in substance to me that there was no discussion

about the employees' western differential request and that it was shown in the December 21 memorandum as covering "all territories," because Mr. Horning and Mr. Mackay had doubleheader or tonnage limitation rules in the eastern and southeastern territories. This extension of the western differential request constituted the single departure of the December 21 memorandum from the McDonough Board recommendations involving rules, and this deviation came solely because of the carrier action and for carrier benefit.

At this time I want to make my position clear insofar as the ratification of the December 21 memorandum is concerned. The carrier committees and others have charged the labor executives with bad faith, and through their newspaper ads attempted to propagandize the public on this score.

On July 11, 1950, the joint meeting of the general chairman of the ORC and BRT at the Congress Hotel in Chicago took action rejecting the Emergency Board recommendations and instructed the chief executives to send a telegram to the President of the United States informing him of this action and of the various inequities affecting road and yard train service employees.

At this same meeting of general chairmen, they adopted the following resolution:

Therefore it is our recommendation that the chief executives of these two organizations, together with the rules committees, make every effort to bring about a just and satisfactory settlement of the issues, subject to the approval of the Associations of General Chairmen.

The Associations of General Chairmen of the Order of Railway Conductors has never rescinded this action. Neither the executive committee nor I have had any right to enter into a binding agreement since July 11, 1950, to and including the present time.

Both Mr. Scott and Mr. O'Neill of the National Mediation Board, in their testimony before this committee, stated that they were fully aware that the December 21 memorandum had to be submitted to and be ratified by our general chairmen. The negotiations from June 27, 1950, leading up to the December 21 memorandum were conducted under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. There was never any statement on my part that could lead anyone to believe that I had the authority to sign a binding agreement.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Hughes, did you ever bring your lack of authority to the attention of the carriers' representatives?

Mr. HUGHES. I don't put it in that way. I tell them what it is. I wouldn't call it lack of authority, but the fact that I didn't have it was made known.

Mr. MURDOCK. Did you make it known to the representatives of the carriers?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. When?

Mr. HUGHES. During direct negotiations there was discussion between the carriers' committee and ours with respect to the authority of each, and we learned from them very clearly at that time what their authority was. I never had any doubt in my mind about it. We informed them at that time of our authority, and that was the last I recall of discussing that particular phase of the case.

Mr. MURDOCK. What was your understanding of the extent of their authority to bargain?

Mr. HUGHES. They told us that they had authority to give us the railroad. They were blessed with a lot more authority than we were. Mr. MURDOCK. They have never offered to do that?

Mr. HUGHES. Not yet. (Laughter).

Mr. MURDOCK. That was the last time you ever specifically told the carriers that you did not have authority to make a binding agreement; is that correct?

Mr. HUGHES. To my knowledge that is correct.

We have talked about it numbers of times after that. It didn't mean anything, perhaps, and we didn't give it the importance that we should have. I was always aware of the authority that the carriers

had.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Hughes, while you were carrying on negotiations with the carriers, was it your understanding that the carriers' committee was conferring from time to time with its principals, with its superiors?

Mr. HUGHES. If something new came up, they always in most instances said they would have to confer with their committee.

Senator MORSE. With the larger carrier committee?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. In connection with that, I just mentioned this western differential and mentioned something about a phone conversation between myself and Mr. O'Neill of the National Mediation Board. He attempted to clear the information I was asking for through Mr. Loomis. I was informed that he would have to consult with his committee.

Senator MORSE. Was that after the case had reached the White House level?

Mr. HUGHES. That was after December 21. That all happened on January 2.

Senator MORSE. Before December 21, while the case was in the White House, was it your understanding that the carriers' negotiating committee frequently or occasionally conferred with the larger committee on points that were discussed at the White House level? Mr. HUGHES. I was always sure that they did.

Senator MORSE. Did they ever tell you that it would be necessary to discuss some point with the larger carrier committee?

Mr. HUGHES. I don't recall that they did. Our conferences were always rather short, and that detail, I think, was well understood between us long before we got to the White House stage of the game, of the case. I can't recall now any instance when they said they would have to go back.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Hughes, it has been the testimony of Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Scott, I think, that you repeatedly stated that you didn't have authority to make a binding agreement.

Mr. HUGHES. I am sure of that, Mr. Murdock, and it was talked about numerous times, but whether the carriers were present at the time it was under discussion between us and the Mediation Board is something I don't know. They may have been there and they may not. We have been in mediation since June of 1950, and still are, and there never has been any doubt in my mind but that everybody we were dealing with understood what our authority was.

Senator MORSE. It is your testimony that during some of the conferences with the carriers in various stages of this case you gave

them to understand that any agreement that you reached would have to be approved by your larger committee?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. Shields was speaking for us, for all four executives at the press conference on December 21.

Senator MORSE. I mean even prior to the press conference of December 21. I mean in the preceding weeks.

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. I recall discussion between Mr. Shields and Mr. Steelman on that particular point, in which it was made clear. Senator MORSE. Which was made clear to the carriers?

Mr. HUGHES. They weren't present when that particular discussion was going on.

Senator MORSE. My question is whether or not at any time during the negotiations on this case you made statements which made clear to the carriers that you did not have authority to make a final and binding agreement without consultation with the general chairmen. Mr. HUGHES. My answer to that is "Yes."

Senator MORSE. Your answer to that is "Yes."

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Loomis in his testimony stated that the carriers did not know that any ratification was necessary. I do not find in the record where Mr. Loomis testified that he made any inquiry of the National Mediation Board, Dr. Steelman, or the chief executives as to our authority. We had every right to assume that the carriers knew of the limitations of our authority. Certainly there can be no justification for the carriers charging the chief executives with bad faith or entrapment in view of the admitted facts as shown by this record. The carriers cannot hold us responsible for their failure to ascertain the extent of our authority.

During all of my discussions with Dr. Steelman, the members of the National Mediation Board and the carriers, I have repeatedly stressed that any agreement which did not correct the gross inequities under which roadmen are now laboring would not be acceptable to me personally, and in my opinion would not be accepted by our general chairmen.

I have at all times emphasized the justification for our request for a graduated-rate-of-pay table and the 100-mile passenger-day. I have never abandoned these items.

The record is quite voluminous in these proceedings covering the details of the 26-hour meeting at the White House on December 20 and 21. While it may not be entirely accurate to characterize the December 21 memorandum as an ultimatum given to us, it was nevertheless made quite clear to us that, insofar as White House intervention and assistance was concerned, the December 21 memorandum was the best settlement that was obtainable from the carriers and the proposition should therefore be submitted to our respective committees. I frankly state that I never felt any moral obligation to recommend the acceptance of the December 21 memorandum. To have done so would have been a complete abandonment of what I regard as my moral obligation to my road conductors and road brakemen to eliminate the gross inequities under which they are suffering, and which was the basic reason for our rules program which was started in March 1949. In this connection there has been some suggestion that if the proposals and the counterproposals as between the BRT and the carriers, as announced to this committee, resulted in a settlement of their

dispute, this would probably result in the disposition of our dispute. I wish to say very frankly that the progression of these rules for the graduated-pay principle and the 100-mile basic day in passenger service must be solved and the gross inequities eliminated before there is any probability, in my judgment, of our dispute being terminated. The membership condition mentioned by Mr. Kennedy in his testimony of March 30 is not applicable to our members, who clearly indicate their support of our program to secure a just settlement. It was the everyday working road conductor and road brakeman who originated this program. It came from the men who are actually running these trains and whose pocketbook and pride in their positions on the crew were daily involved. They can see no reason why they should be discriminated against. They have borne this discrimination for years. There is a limit to the patience of all men. They anticipate a fair and honorable settlement.

The correction of inequities has been the basic public policy of the United States in relation to wages, hours, and working conditions of employees of the railroads of this country since 1918, and as to employees of all industry with the stabilization program of World War II. In referring to the Defense Production Act of 1950, it is significant that President Truman in an address to the Nation on September 9, 1950, made the point that

Existing inequities in wage rates, of course, can and should be corrected.

It seems to our chairmen that, if we do not receive consideration of our request to remove the inequities, everyone, including the United States Government, will have to repudiate the long-standing policy for equality of treatment between employees.

I do not believe that our men, who directed us to take steps to eliminate the gross inequities which our rules proposals sought to remedy, will ever be satisfied unless some results are obtained in this direction. The harmonious operation of the railroads of the United States can only be accomplished when harmonious wage relationships exist between all members of the same crew. Pay differentials are one of the foundation pillars of good working relations in the railroad industry. The long-established and historical pay relationship between the road conductor and the road brakemen and the engine crew must be restored.

This concludes my testimony. I wish to express my personal appreciation and that of the men whom I have the honor to represent to this committee and its staff for their patience in giving me this opportunity to present our views regarding this matter.

Senator MORSE. I have only a few questions, Mr. Hughes.

To complete the record on the line of questioning that I asked the chiefs of the other brotherhoods last Friday, I will ask you these questions.

You were in the hearing room last Friday when I examined Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Shields, and Mr. Robertson. You remember that I referred to paragraph (a) of the interim order of February 8 signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Bendetsen. You will recall that that paragraph was the one which ordered the men back to work on peril of losing their jobs within 48 hours if they did not return to work and on peril of losing their seniority rights if they did not return to work.