Page images
PDF
EPUB

Perhaps to insure that there should be no misunderstanding of the strong desire of the general chairmen to retain the right to disapprove or approve any proposal of settlement made in this case, a motion was adopted by the general chairmen on October 9, 1949– that the general chairmen in district 1, 2, and 3 participating in the 40-hour-week movement shall be convened before any final settlement is agreed to.

Hence, both by constitutional provision and by motion, the general chairmen reserved for themselves full control over the terms of settlement of this case. This, incidentally, is not the sole instance in our experience of the withholding from the international president of power to finally settle a dispute. In our Diesel movement initiated in June 1947, the associations of general chairmen retained control of the settlement until October 1949, when, at a meeting of the association, they empowered the international president and a subcommittee of general chairmen to take such steps as they might deem necessary to successfully execute the program, which was understood to mean that we could agree upon final and binding terms of settlement of that case.

The instant movement, which we call the 40-hour workweek and rules case, entered the stage of national conferences on October 5, 1950, following conferences on separate railroads between individual general chairmen and representatives of the railroads. These separate conferences failed to result in an agreement on any railroad. At the so-called local stage of negotiation the authority of the international president was not material because local negotiations are in charge of the general chairman for the particular railroad involved.

The national conferences between the BLF & E and the railroads to which I have referred may be divided into two periods—the first from October 5 to November 14, and the second from November 15 through December 21, 1950. During the first period conferences were attended by the international president of our brotherhood, the chairmen of the carriers' conference committees, and members of our subcommittee which originally was composed of 9 but was later augmented to 18. During these conferences I made it clear to the representatives of the carriers that both the subcommittee and I lacked power to make a final and binding agreement. It was known that after October 31, 1950, our associations of general chairmen would not be in Washington and that several days would necessarily be consumed in convening them for the purpose of examining any tentative agreement. Accordingly, I informed the spokesmen for the carriers that if an apparently acceptable settlement was developed, we could, if necessary, telegraph our general chairmen to determine whether they approved or disapproved. It was my understanding that the chairmen of the carriers' conference committees—Messrs. Horning, Loomis, and Mackey, who signed the December 21, 1950, memorandum, likewise were required to obtain approval of their respective committees

National conferences between our organization and the carriers concluded for the time being on November 14, 1950—were transferred to the White House under the auspices of Dr. Steelman on November 21, 1950. These conferences were participated in by all four operating brotherhoods which, with the exception of the ORC and BRT, had theretofore met separately with the carriers. At the White House

[ocr errors]

conferences, Dr. Steelman was advised by all four union leaders of the necessity on the part of all of us to obtain ratification by our general chairmen of any proposed basis of agreement.

Conferences were held in the White House almost daily from November 21 to December 21, during which time the proposed basis of settlement was developed. The chief executives of the labor organizations regarded it as tentative and signed it with the understanding that it was only such and no more. A conference of newspaper reporters was held at the White House immediately after the signing of the tentative agreement. The memorandum was described as tentative by such accurate reporters as the New York Times. The settlement, made too late to report in the issue of the New York Times for December 21, was reported in the issue of Friday, December 22, 1950. The following is quoted from the opening paragraphs of the article:

Dr. Steelman announced the terms of the tentative agreement after a 25-hour session with the spokesmen for the carriers and the unions in the White House.

In a later paragraph of the same article, it was stated :

If ratified by the brotherhoods, today's agreement will put the escalator clause into effect for the Big Four transportation unions for the first time. This clause provides for a quarterly adjustment of wages on the basis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumers index of living costs.

It appears to me from a circumstance that I am about to relate that the memorandum, in order to be regarded as binding, required ratification by the carriers' conference committees as well as the brotherhoods. That they in fact sought approval, and later obtained it, appears in the Friday, December 22, 1950, issue of the New York Times, from which I quoted above, one paragraph reading:

The tentative agreement was ratified early this afternoon by the Eastern Carriers Conference Committee, the Western Carriers Conference Committee, and the Southeastern Carriers Conference Committee.

Following the signing of the memorandum and the news conference at the White House, I placed the memorandum before our subcommittee of general chairmen in Washington, D. C., during the late afternoon of December 21 having in mind that the subcommittee's examination of it was a proper preliminary to consideration by the full meeting of general chairmen. The subcommittee unanimously disapproved of the agreement and the general chairmen were called into session at Cleveland, Ohio, on January 4, 1951. Prior to our meeting the general chairmen of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers met in Cleveland on December 27 and within a day or two instructed J. P. Shields, grand chief engineer, to return to Washington to negotiate for a more favorable settlement. Our general chairmen were in session 3 days and on January 5, 1951, took action rejecting the memorandum and directing meto endeavor to cooperate with the chief executives of the BLE, ORC and BRT and their respective committees to make a further effort to bring about a more equitable and satisfactory settlement of the issues, including an additional increase in the basic daily rate of pay for men represented by these organizations and in addition the withdrawal of the carriers' proposed changes in rules.

I promptly wired Dr. Steelman of the decision of our general chairmen. Subsequently the chief executives were asked to come to Washington to meet Dr. Steelman, which we did, meeting being held on January 18. With the exception of the conference on that date

we have not since met with Dr. Steelman. Such negotiations as have taken place have resulted from the good oflices of the National Mediation Board.

The tentative or provisional character of the memorandum of December 21 seems to be rather generally recognized by all who have knowledge of the progress of negotiations preceding it, with the exception of the carriers. A press release from the White House made by Press Secretary Joseph Short appearing in the Washington Post of Friday, February 9, 1951, stated in so many words the President's understanding that the memorandum was subject to ratification. Mr. Short said:

The President understands that the agreement (of December 21) was subject to ratification by the members of the brotherhoods but feels that the individuals who signed the agreement could not have done so in good faith unless they intended to make a conscientious effort to explain it fully and recommend ratification by their members.

That the railroads' position regarding the finality of the memorandum is wholly indefensible, requires no further comment in view of the record and the statement of the White House showing that it was subject to ratification. I should like, however, to add something in refutation of the charge of bad faith made against us. First and foremost, I made no commitment to anyone during the negotiations that I would recommend ratification of the memorandum, and secondly there was not even an implied responsibility to recommend it. In view of the understanding we had as to the tentative nature of the memorandum, signatures did nothing more than identify the document we agreed to carry back to our members for their consideration.

I do not know on what foundation of fact the charge is made that I did not fully explain the document to our general chairmen. I spent several hours explaining every item in the memorandum.

These general chairmen are railroad employees of long experience and it does not take extended explanation to acquaint them with the import of a proposed agreement of this nature. The memorandum was discussed in sessions of general chairmen lasting all day Thursday, January 4, and from 9:30 a. m. until after noon on the following day, before action was taken by the general chairmen rejecting the proposal.

There has been no progress in the negotiations since the middle of January 1951, chiefly, if not entirely, because the railroads have consistently adhered to the outline of the memorandum of December 21, 1950. Recent events by way of refusal of a substantial number of employees to report to work, testify to the fact that operating employees in general strenuously objected to the proposed basis of settlement. In compliance with orders of the Department of the Army, railroad men undoubtedly will work and will be urged by me to continue on their jobs. But that does not mean that they will be satisfied employees. They will be dissatisfied because they believe the merits of the controversy are on their side and that they should receive more than is provided for them in the memorandum of December 21 and the general order issued on February 8, 1951, by the Department of the Army.

Here I should like to introduce as an exhibit, if the Chair please, a statement that I have here. It is entitled “Statement by D. B. Robertson, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and

Enginemen, Washington, D. C., January 24, 1951." It contains a statement prepared by me quoting various articles from our constitution, the constitution of the brotherhood, and from minutes of vari. ous meetings of our general chairmen's associations, the basic statements and law I have made available for the committee, and finally the statement calls attention to resumption of the conferences here in Washington and introduces with it certain exhibits, which I have already filed with the committee, beginning with exhibit A, which contains a copy of the proposition we filed with the carriers under date of November 1, 1949, requesting that the emergency board report on the Diesel dispute with no loss in take-home pay be granted to the employees represented by our brotherhood; also exhibit No. A-1, calling our general chairmen into session to consider the matter back in 1949, alerting them that there would be a meeting to take up the 40hour week; exhibit No. A-2, Cleveland, Ohio, September 1, fixing a definite date for the committee to meet; exhibit No. B, prepared by our brotherhood as an outline in detail to the carriers while we were in session in Washington beginning October 5 of the manner in which the 40-hour week would apply to the employees we represent.

You will understand, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that only those employees who are employed in yard and hostling service, and who are on the hourly basis of pay, are involved in the 40-hour-week proposition. It is not intended to apply to road employees, because they are on what we call a mileage and hourly basis. În other words, the men in the yards represent about 40 percent of the total number of employees we represent in the industry.

Exhibit C was filled with us by the carriers on our request as a reply to our general proposition as presented and explained to the carriers during these days that we were in session, from October 5 to October 11. It carries with it, you will notice, beginning on page 3, certain rules changes proposed by the carriers. One has to do with the yard-switching limits, moving and changing the switching limits in the various yards. Page 4 covers the question of interdivisional and intradivisional runs. Ever since the railroads have been established, men have located their homes at what the carriers seem to feel were convenient points to exchange engines and trains and crews. The men have built up their homes in these towns. Some of them play a very important part in the civil affairs of these towns along the road. Particularly you will notice that through the western country. This interdivisional and intradivisional run suggested by the carriers is intended to break up those terminals or at least give them the right to break them up. They ask for full power and complete control over the matter of running the men in and out of the terminals and through terminals, and so forth, so that the interdivisional-run proposition really is a blanket-authority request on the part of the carriers. It names no specific examples of how the rules should be applied, and therefore it met with strenuous objections from the employees.

These rules, if granted to the carriers, would, in our opinion, save more money to them than is involved in granting the full demands made by the brotherhoods.

And there was on page 5 a rule proposed by the carriers entitled "More Than One Class of Road Service.” We have a rule today that seems to have raised some controversy, and boards have been making decisions both ways. In fairness to the carriers, I make that state

9

a

а

ment, because referees, like everybody else, differ in their views of these rules, just like, I suppose, judges differ in their views on law. But, therefore, it was felt by the carriers that there ought to be a uniform understanding reached with regard to the application of this rule so that all railroads would be treated alike. They overlooked one fact, however, and that is that when this rule was made standard away back in the First World War, some roads had a better and more favorable rule, and they retained it. There have been some changes made since by negotiations between the carriers and the employees, which is always a give-and-take proposition; and men in the national conference don't know what one or the other gave away or traded off to get the kind of a rule they wanted, so therefore, we didn't feel like we should interfere with this, because it does involve our basic day.

Then there came the rule on page 6, entitled “Reporting for Duty." All there is in this rule is that when trains are running late, the carrier can call the employees late, and their time will commence accordingly. This does not apply in the West or in the southeastern territory, where all men are called for service in the transportation end of the industry. No matter what time your train is due to leave, the management calls you, whether the train is late or on time, but in the East it is different. We have regular rules for reporting for duty on the leaving time of the trains, notwithstanding the trains may be running late. Management has not at the local level undertaken to negotiate with our people for a rule that would be fair to both sides. They want to let the man stay at home day or night, whichever it may be, and if the train is running late, they will notify him to report accordingly. This would save time and money to the carrier and let the man stay home a little longer to rest. Notwithstanding this was dragged in here as a national rule, it only applies to eastern territory, so far as we know, but to one railroad. Our chairman on the railroad that brought it in here has proposed to the management he would be very glad to sit down and negotiate a rule that would cover the matter against which he complains. That is exhibit C.

The next exhibit attached to my statement of January 24 is exhibit D, and it is dated “Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, October 23, 1950." This is in answer to the carrier's proposal which is now given the designation "Exhibit C.” This is a full reply to everything covered in the carrier's proposition. I might say at this point that as far as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen are concerned, when we came into these conferences we came in with only one request. That was that the employees we represented in yard and hostling service be treated the same as all the other employees of the industry have been treated since September 1949, and as most employees in the outstanding industries of the country have been treated for a number of years, that is, that we be put on a 40-hour week with no loss in take-home pay.

Senator NEELY. What reasons have been assigned for refusal to treat your brotherhood in that manner?

Mr. ROBERTSON. The main reason has been, that is, which has been stated to us, is that the manpower shortage, which would require the management to work our people considerable overtime. But the people who went on the 40-hour week in September 1949, are still on it, and they are getting their 48 hours' pay plus 7 cents an hour increase on top of that. They have declined to give our transportation men, our

« PreviousContinue »