Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

1

AIRLINE DISPUTE

MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 12:10 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Lister Hill (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hill (presiding), Morse, Yarborough, Clark, Randolph, Pell, Kennedy of Massachusetts, Nelson, Kennedy of New York, Javits, Prouty, Dominick, Murphy, Fannin and Griffin.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk: John S. Forsythe, general counsel; Arnold Memore, professional staff economist; and Frank Cummings, minority labor counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order. Secretary Wirtz, we are glad to have you here with us. Senator Morse, do you have any questions?

Senator MORSE. Mr. Secretary, is it your preference to make any statement before the committee questions start?

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR

Secretary WIRTZ. No, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I just received your call. I will be glad to answer any questions you have.

Senator MORSE. I am sure there will be many questions by my colleagues, but I think what they would like to hear from you at the outset, if you can tell us, give them a comparative analysis of what the union sought, what the carriers sought, and what the negotiation settlement of the other night granted.

I think they want to know what the comparative positions of the parties are. I know they also would like to have some discussion about what the Emergency Board recommended, but I think the important thing is to give them a comparison, if you will, of what the union sought, what the carriers offered, and what the negotiated settlement

was.

Secretary WIRTZ. I will be glad to do that, Senator Morse.

There is one note that should be made at the outset which makes comparison a little difficult and complicated, and that is there are two different periods of time that have entered into the consideration of this matter.

One would be a 3-year period and the other would be a 42-month period, so I will have to make adjustment for comparison as I go along.

I am also testifying from recollection. As to the testimony, I have sufficient confidence in it that it will not mislead anyone in general terms, but there will be the opportunity to correct details which might arise.

The history should probably go back to the union's original demand which was for a 1-year contract for a 15-percent increase in wages during that year, plus certain fringe adjustments.

That demand went way back. It should be carried forward then to the period probably of the recommendation of the Presidential Emergency Board, of which you were Chairman.

You would be in a position to correct this general description of the recommendation of that Board. In round figures, as nearly as they can be used, that recommendation probably costed out at around $76 or $77 million over a 42-month period. That recommendation was with a $76 or $77 million cost recommendation over a 42-month period with various provisions to take effect at different points along the line.

With respect to wage rates, there were recommendations for specific increases in cents per hour for various classifications. It was an essential feature of that recommendation that it provided that if in the latter part of the contract period it developed that there had been an undue increase in the cost of living, the contract could be reopened on wages and submitted to arbitration to determine on specified bases where an additional increase was necessary.

With those details, then, and for purposes of comparison, what we were talking about at that point was a $76 million package, 42-month period, with this provisional cost-of-living feature in it.

The bargaining then proceeded under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act during the 30-day period after receipt of that recommendation. In the course of that period and quite early, and specifically, I think, on July 7, the union presented a set of demands which were as follows:

First, it was for a 3-year period that their demands covered, the cost of that package would have been approximately $115 million. It is a little hard to know what estimates to make with respect to cost-of-living developments and so forth, that contract proposal of the union included a proposal for a cost-of-living escalated clause throughout the contract. I think it is fairly valid at around $115 million.

The carriers' position at that point was one of complete support of the Emergency Board recommendation which was, as I say again, at about $76 or $77 million for a 42-month period.

Let me skip then to the final settlement which can be priced out roughly in these terms:

First, the final settlement arrived at by the representatives of the parties last Friday night was for a 3-year period. There has not yet been an opportunity to cost it out in specific terms, but I think a fair pricing of that contract is that it would be at a figure of about $73 million. That is for the 3-year period.

If you translated the Emergency Board report which was for a 42-month period into a 36-month period-and it is not an easy and exact translation, because various things take effect in different years you would probably arrive at a 36-month evaluation of the Emergency Board report at $66 to $67 million, with the provisional cost-of-living feature in it.

In the course of the bargaining, the carriers had offered certain increases in various provisions and, again, although they had been made on the assumption of a 42-month contract, they can be translated into roughly $70 million, $70 to $71 million on a 36-month basis. Gentlemen, then, in summary, the situation is this:

A settlement agreed upon by the parties' representatives last Friday night, 36-month settlement, no cost-of-living provision in the settlement which would count as a matter of very real significance from the stabilization standpoint, about a $73 million package for a 36-month period, comparing with the companies' offer of between $70 and $71 million, and compared with the union's 36-month demand of about $115 million to include the cost-of-living feature.

I hope the figures have not been confusing. That is about where it came out, or making the other comparison, it relationship to the recommendation of the Presidential Emergency Board if that could be priced on a 36-month basis, it would be in the $66 to $67 million category, plus the cost-of-living feature; the settlement was in the $73 million area without a cost-of-living feature.

Senator MORSE. I have one other question at this time and I will desist for others to ask questions.

I am sure you realize, Mr. Secretary, that the major concern of this committee is the question as to whether it should recommend to the Senate legislation to seek to end this strike for a period of time so there can be further consideration of the position with respect to the parties, whether that should be done by way of the Congress passing legislation based upon the Railway Labor Act, the feeling of the question as to whether or not there is substantial interruption of transportation, essential transportation that affects at least some sections of the country or whether the legislation should take the form of giving the President discretionary power to seek to handle the matter, leaving him the residual power of deciding to send the men back to work by mandatory action on his part.

I do not raise that for any discussion on my part at this time, but you will recall when you were before the committee the other day, you said two things that you did not feel that a national emergency existed at that time but there was dislocation and, in fact, in answer to a question put to you by the Senator from New York, Mr. Javits, the record shows that you did recognize that there is an interruption of essential transportation services in some sections of the country.

I think it would be very helpful to this committee if you could give us the benefit of your point of view on whether legislation should be passed and what your recommendation would be as to the form of that legislation.

Secretary WIRTZ. I would be hard put to it to answer it in that broad form, but with respect to various parts of the issue which I understand to be before the committee and responsive to what you said, there are these factors to be taken into account.

First, in terms of the revised form of Senate Joint Resolution 181, as I presently understand it, the jurisdictional language is in terms of the language of the Railway Labor Act.

Senator MORSE. That is correct.

Secretary WIRTZ. And I did testify in answer to Senator Javits' question that with respect to that, there could be no question in this

particular case about the present situation coming within that language.

Indeed, the establishment of the Emergency Board itself was upon the finding of that judgment having been arrived at by the National Mediation Board itself, so there could be no question with respect to that point.

With respect to another aspect of the question to which you refer, or the points which you make, with respect to the question as to whether, given that situation and given a decision by the Congress that there should be action taken in this particular case, the appropriate form of it would be the declaration by Congress of that situation and its acting upon it or its leaving that determination to subsequent action by the President-if that is the question, as between those two, it would seem to me quite clearly that with the finding made in Senate Joint Resolution 181 there remains no action beyond that that would require any further discretionary decision on the part of the Executive. If that finding is made by the Congress, it seems to me that is all there is to it.

Senator JAVITS. Would the Senator yield for a question at that point on that subject?

Senator MORSE. Yes; I vield.

Senator JAVITS. Would you wish to forecast, Mr. Secretary, the period of time that that finding ought to be valid for before the President may be asked to make a new finding?

It will be recalled that the original Morse resolution had that finding cover a 180-day mandatory maximum as an additional cooling-off period. Now, would you wish to help us in any way as to a proper time within which one might cast that finding forward?

Secretary WIRTZ. May I answer that question, Senator Javits, in terms of my general understanding that there has been discussion-indeed, it is reflected in the various resolutions-of the single 180-day period or three 60-day periods, I will answer in terms of that understanding.

While I would not count that difference a basic or vital difference, I would have a very, very strong preference or judgment to express in terms of the single 180-day period for the following reasons, again making it clear that I am only expressing a judgment as between these two which I understood your question to imply.

Senator JAVITS. Correct.

Secretary WIRTZ. As between those two there would seem to me to be these factors weighing in favor of the 180-day period and against the three 60-day periods.

In terms of my own official obligation, there will remain the necessity of doing whatever can be done to get this matter straightened out at some point. The recurrence of 60-day crises in this thing during the next 180 days, if that is what it is to be, seems to me to present a very real difficulty of one kind or another. To work on a basis of three 60-day crisis periods seems to me to complicate this situation unduly.

The prospect of another finding by the President of the United States with respect to this matter at recurrent periods during this time seems to me again to present very real questions about the use of that office. I am not sure what the legalities of this situation are.

« PreviousContinue »