Mr. BICKERS. I should also like to present a copy of the latest Annual Report of the National Mediation Board for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1950.

The CHAIRMAN. This report will likewise be received in evidence and marked "Mediation Board Exhibit No. 6."

(The document referred to was marked "Mediation Board Exhibit No. 6" and filed with the committee.)

Mr. BICKERS. I wish to direct the committee's attention to the exhibit listed as No. 2, above, to emphasize the number of persons and the cost to the Government for the maintenance of the Mediation Boards over the period indicated.

In connection with this expense, we have from time to time received commendation from the Appropriations Committees. The House Appropriations Committee, in connection with our requested appropriation for the fiscal year 1950, on page 33 of its report, under the caption "Title III, National Mediation Board," stated, and which also embraces the National Railway Adjustment Board in our appropriation approaches:

The committee has always found these agencies to be very modest in their budgetary requests and to exercise a commendable conservatism in the expenditure of funds granted for their operation.

In order to save the time of your committee, I will refrain from reading the first few pages of my prepared statement. The history of the Railway Labor Act and the railroad labor laws preceding it have been listed in chronological order. I do wish to emphasize, however, the immensity of the transportation industry and to point out that each of the major railroads in this country is a giant industry within itself. The first few pages of my statement deal with the size and magnitude of this far-reaching industry which constitutes the Nation's transportation arteries and which touch practically every town and hamlet. Employees are engaged in thousands of offices, shops, roundhouses, yards, terminals, stations, et cetera.

The next section of the report deals with the history of the railway labor legislation, which I will refrain from reading. That has been covered in previous exhibits, I believe, which have been presented to the committee. I should like to read in the record, however, page 9, our basic observations.

In the passage of the original Railway Labor Act in 1926, Congress apparently accepted the joint conclusions of managements and of the railroad labor organizations in respect of the scope and method of the legislation to provide governmental assistance in composing differences between carriers and their employees. Coercive and punitive provisions were absent in the Railway Labor Act of 1926. The evident purpose was to safeguard the principles of voluntary action, with governmental participation principally confined to the extension of good offices in the solution of railroad labor problems. In thus dealing with legislation, in the practical effects of which there is such a great and vital public interest, Congress imposed an extraordinary responsibility in both managements' and employees' organizations to discharge their obligation to each other and to the public in the utmost of good faith.

In our opinion, the provisions of the Railway Labor Act have a far broader significance and purpose than the actual processing of dis

putes through established governmental channels. The basic purpose of the act was to encourage good relationship between employers and employees and to afford governmental assistance after thorough collective bargaining had been exercised at the at-home bargaining table. Being the principal administrative agencies under the act, the Board of Mediation, under the 1926 act, and the National Mediation Board, under the act as amended in 1935, have continually endeavored to act as counselors or missionaries in the field of good will in the vast transportation industries, and the over-all effect of such efforts cannot be reflected in statistical tables or isolated occurrences.

I will refrain from reading a portion of page 10, but I should like to go to the bottom of page 10.

During the first year, 1926-27, when the act received its initial "baptism," there was no occasion to invoke the Emergency Board provisions of the law. Many important cases were settled by mediation or arbitration and others by withdrawal. Among those disposed of by arbitration agreements, one case affected a regional area of 87 carriers and 60,000 employees and another 48 carriers and 90,000 employees. These arbitration agreements covered the operating groups. During the year 1928 the second year's experience under the act was equally as impressive as that of the first year in the maintenance of uninterrupted rail transportation. The principles of mediation and arbitration were effective and resulted in many settlements through those channels. Among the cases arbitrated was one involving a regional area of 90 carriers and approximately 25,000 employees, and another involving 80 carriers and approximately 55,000 employees. Section 10 was invoked for the first time, involving the operating groups on one railroad-the Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway System-covering request for so-called standard rates of pay and eight unadjusted grievances.

For the year ended 1929 mediation and arbitration continued to be effective. Such settlements during the year were confined to individual carriers and individual crafts or classes on such carriers. There were two Emergency Boards created under section 10 of the act: (1) Western carriers and conductors, brakemen, switchmen, and switchtenders represented by the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and (2) the Texas & Pacific Railway Co. and its engineers, firemen, conductors, and trainmen.

The case involving all the principal western carriers embraced the employees' request for change in the pick-up and drop rule and general increase in wages and carriers' request for change in the double-header rule. The case involving the Texas & Pacific embraced disputes growing out of the moving of terminals, change in assignments, pooling cabooses, and several other items.

These cases presented the first major tests of the Emergency Board provisions of the act and were watched with national interest in weighing the value of the fact-finding or cooling-off theory. The cases were settled within the framework of the Emergency Board's findings. Interstate commerce was not interrupted.

During the year 1930 many settlements were made through the processes of mediation and arbitration, but there were fewer arbitrations than in any previous year. There were no threats to interrupt interstate commerce necessitating report to the President. There

was a strike on a small carrier, the Toledo, Peoria & Western, but it did not present any threat to essential interstate commerce. The case was settled by the parties. There were no Emergency Boards this year. The following is quoted from the Board of Mediation's annual report to the Congress.

I will refrain from reading that, Mr. Chairman.

In 1931, while many cases were submitted to and disposed of by the Board of Mediation, they were not broadly viewed of such outstanding importance as in preceding years. The economic condition of the country contributed a definite influence. The attitude of employees and carriers-one toward the other-continued to be friendly and healthy.

During the year 1932 the Board received and settled more cases than during any like preceding period. There was one Emergency Board on the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. and the Louisiana, Arkansas & Texas involving several disputes, the principal one of which was in connection with the carriers' action in reducing wages. The classes involved were the operating groups and the shop crafts engaged in the maintenance of equipment. Interstate commerce was not interrupted.

During the year the railroads nationally met with 21 national labor organizations in connection with wage deductions for all classes of employees. This was the first time that all railroad employees had been dealt with on a national scale. The conferences were in harmony with the spirit of the Railway Labor Act, and resulted in a national agreement providing for a deduction in wages of 10 percent for a period of 1 year. The proceedings demonstrated a desire on the part of railroad employees and carriers to contribute practically to the economic well-being of the country. This action was looked upon as an outstanding demonstration of the soundness of the principles of the Railway Labor Act.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have taken each year and have tried to point out the high lights in that year, and if you desire that I read them I will do so.

The CHAIRMAN. That will not be necessary; they will be read. Can you supply a sufficient number of these to allow each committee member a copy?

Mr. BICKERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any parts of the statement that you wish to emphasize at this time?

Mr. BICKERS. I should like to read an extract from page 14, which covers the year 1934.

This year was the final one for the five-man Board of Mediation established under the original Railway Labor Act, 1926. There were no strikes in the railroad industry during the year. There were four Emergency Boards covering disputes involving the operating groups on four individual carriers; viz, (1) Louisiana, Arkansas & Texas Railway, (2) Mobile & Ohio Railroad, (3) Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, and (4) Delaware & Hudson Railroad Corp. The case involving the Delaware & Hudson attracted Nation-wide interest for the reason that it involved a complete change in the basis of pay for employees in the train-operating groups. The plan proposed by the carrier was generally referred to as the Lorse plan, which was

introduced for a trial period of 1 year. At the end of the 1-year trial period the employees sought to return to the old agreements. Disputes involving claims under the old rules after the 1-year trial period had expired were involved. As a result of mediatory efforts on the part of the Board, threat to interrupt traffic was removed.

1934 was the last year of the old Board, and 1935 was the first year of the present Board. To conserve the time of the committee, I might say that we have tried in this summary under each of the respective years to emphasize in the statement itself what we consider the outstanding happenings under the act. At the back of the statement you will find an appendage showing a complete history of the evolution of the railroad labor laws. I think that was pretty well covered by an exhibit submitted by Mr. Loomis some days ago.

We should like to say this, Mr. Chairman: that any one of these big railroads about which we are talking is a giant industry in itself. We are a small Government agency. We are trying to carry out that edict of the law or directive of the law as to what we shall do. We have, over these many years, been in close contact with the representatives of all of these organizations, with all of these railroads. My little office is more of a nerve center for complaints with respect to what is going on in the railroad industries. Practically every man in this room calls every other man by his first name regardless of whether they are on the railroad side of the table or whether they are on the labor side of the table. We know them all by their first names. They built up a relationship in the railroad industry that is second to none in any industry in the world, and it makes our hearts bleedI will say that personally-to see that we have to come before any investigating committee of the Senate with respect to labor relations on the railroads. These men, these organizations, have been in force. and effect for many years, and I have no brief personally for a lot of things that have been done. A lot of things have been done that were wrong, but we do say that we feel the mechanics of the Railway Labor Act have proved their worth. We have tried hard. We believe that we have been effective.

Unfortunately the things that we have done, the cases that we have settled, the strikes that we have avoided, have not reached the public press. We have had hundreds of them, and during the last World War we would have flashes day after day with respect to some disturbance somewhere. We would immediately contact the railroad or contact the representative of the labor organization which might be involved; and I think, without any exception whatever, our contacts and our interest in advising them and counseling them with respect to those things contributed materially to the stabilized situation that we had during the last World War. They had a lot of tough cases, a lot of national cases, that were really tough from the standpoint of both sides, but we only hope and we only pray-I can say that literally-that this episode through which we have been passing will not operate to drive any breach between the relationship which has been established by these labor organizations for 65 or 70 years, and we hope that we can continue to be an instrument of good.