TABLE OF CONTENTS IV. The National Issues: Findings and Recommendations _ _. A. General Wage Rates and Related Issues --- 1. Effective date and duration of the contract____ 3. Wage progression schedules. I. HISTORY OF THE EMERGENCY BOARD This Emergency Board, designated by the National Mediation Board as Emergency Board No. 166, was created by Executive Order 11276 of the President issued April 21, 1966, pursuant to Section 10, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, to investigate and report its findings of unadjusted disputes between Eastern Air Lines, Inc., National Airlines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Trans World Airlines, Inc., and United Air Lines, Inc., and certain of their employees represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, a labor organization. The President appointed the following as members of the Board: Wayne Morse, U.S. Senator from Oregon, Chairman; David Ginsburg, an Attorney from Washington, D.C., Member; and Richard E. Neustadt, Professor of Government at Harvard University, Member. The Board met for organizational purposes on April 26, 1966, in Washington, D.C. Public hearings were held for 8 days between May 6 and May 27 at Washington, D.C. During these hearings the parties to the dispute were given full and adequate opportunity to present evidence and argument before the Board. The Board also made itself available for any informal meetings requested by the parties; in the event, none was requested. The parties to these proceedings were identified to the Board as follows: The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers by P. L. Siemiller, International President Robert E. Stenzinger, Grand Lodge Representative 2 The five Carriers by William J. Curtin, Chairman, Five Carriers' Negotiating Com- Charles M. Mason, Sr., Vice President-Personnel, United Air Paul Berthoud, Manager, Industrial Relations, United Air Lines, J. M. Rosenthal, Vice President-Industrial Relations, National Robert A. Ebert, Vice-President-Personnel, Northwest Airlines, Ralph H. Skinner, Jr., Vice President-Industrial Relations, John P. Mead, Staff Vice President-Industrial Relations, Eastern David J. Crombie, Vice-President-Industrial Relations, Trans The record of the proceedings consists of 1,968 pages of testimony and exhibits and 9 separate appendices of exhibits primarily relating to local issues. During the proceedings, the Board made it clear to the parties that its report to the President would be based upon the record established by the parties to this dispute. Since the creation of the Board, the parties by stipulation, approved by the President, have agreed to extend the time within which the Board must report its findings to the President until June 5, 1966. II. BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE The airline carriers in this dispute are 5 of the 11 domestic trunk airlines operating in the United States. They represent over 60 percent of the domestic trunkline industry as measured by passenger miles. The IAM represents 35,399 (March 1966) of their employees involved in this dispute. These employees are primarily employed in mechanic, ramp and store, flight kitchen, dining service, plant protection, and related classifications. The Carriers and Union entered into an agreement dated August 9, 1965, establishing a procedure for joint negotiation of the dispute between the parties. This agreement provided that each Carrier and the Union should be limited to 15 proposals for changes in the existing. agreements between each Carrier and the IAM, and that the following 8 items, which are identical to all Carriers, should be the subject of joint bargaining: 3 (a) Rates of pay and progression steps (c) Holiday provisions (d) Health and welfare (insurance programs) (e) Overtime rules (f) Pension plans (g) Hours of service (h) License requirements and premiums On October 1, 1965, the Carriers and the Union served upon each other the notices required by their August Agreement and by Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act. The Union chose to submit seven notices for each individual Carrier, and the eight items common to all Carriers. The Carriers served over 70 notices, all on local issues. The parties then enered into individual and joint negotiation on these notices. Negotiations proceeded for 2 months. Thereafter, on January 11, 1966, the parties jointly applied to the National Mediation Board for mediation service. The case was docketed by the NMB and referred to Board Member Howard G. Gamser for handling. He began his efforts on February 1, 1966, and continued until March 10. His mediation led to the exchange of proposals and counterproposals, but the parties failed to reach a final agreement. On March 18, 1966, the NMB proffered arbitration, which the Carriers accepted and the Union declined. Under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, the NMB then formally terminated its services. However, on April 14 it made a final effort to mediate the dispute. This effort was unsuccessful and the Union set a strike deadline for 12:01 a.m., local time, April 23, 1966. The NMB then notified the President that in its judgment this dispute threatened to substantially interrupt interstate commerce so as to deprive the country of essential transportation service. The President promptly created this Emergency Board. The Union then withdrew its strike notice. The August 9 agreement provided among other things that none of the parties should execute an agreement until all of the parties had reached agreement in final settlement of all issues. III. THE ISSUES The original notices required by Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act and by the August 9 Agreement included eight issues common to the Union and all Carriers. These are called "national issues." The notices also included over 100 other issues, each relating to an individual Carrier. These are called "local issues." None of the eight 4 national issues was resolved by negotiation or mediation. Of the local issues, 40 remained unresolved at the time of our hearings. The Board took testimony and heard cross-examination on all 48 outstanding issues. Each has been subjected by the Board to careful inquiry. IV. THE NATIONAL ISSUES: FINDINGS AND A. GENERAL WAGE RATES AND RELATED ISSUES The Union has proposed substantial percentage increases in the rates of pay over a 3-year period beginning January 1, 1966, coupled with the elimination of all but one progression step and the introduction of a cost-of-living adjustment allowance. The Carriers have offered hourly rate increases in three groups of classifications over a 3-year period, have sought to justify all rate progression schedules now in effect and have rejected the concept of a cost-of-living adjustment allowance. In addition, instead of January 1, 1966, the Carriers would delay any pay increases until the pay period next commencing after the date upon which they receive written notice from the Union of the ratification of the new agreement. 1. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF THE CONTRACT The most recent agreement between these parties was due to expire at midnight on December 31, 1965. During the last 5 months of 1965 the five Carriers and the Union established a procedure for joint negotiations of the disputes between the parties; identified and defined both national and local issues; served on each other the Section 6 notices required by the Railway Labor Act and began individual and joint negotiations. The bargaining progress thus begun continued throughout the first quarter of this year, with the services of the National Mediation Board, and although final agreements were not reached a large number of local issues were disposed of, and the remaining issues were sharpened and in some instances modified. Since August 1965, therefore, the parties have been seeking to resolve their differences and reach agreement for purposes of a successor contract. The Board considers that the maintenance of close contact and communication between Union and Carriers and the utilization in good faith of the procedures of the Railway Labor Act and the services of the National Mediation Board furthers the interests both of the parties and the public and recommends, as in the 1963 settlement, retroactivity to the expiration date of the last settlement. |