Mr. Gillick suggested that the railroads should have the right to appear before the referee, or if we were not agreeable to that, we should agree to have a stenographic record kept at all hearings before the Board, such record to be made a part of the record and available, if and when a referee should be called in. We were not willing to adopt this procedure. Mr. Bishop called attention to the fact that the law provides for two or more members of the Board conducting hearings and stated that the labor members had advocated such arrangement but that the railroad members of the Board had steadfastly refused to do so except upon a few occasions. Several members of Mr. Gillick's committee expressed the thought that such an arrangement would be a practical method of expediting the handling of cases and the railroad representatives of the Board were called upon by Mr. Gillick for an expression of their position and Messrs. Fowler, Knoff, Faherty, and McDonald expressed at length their objections to splitting up the Board. During the discussion it was explained that the Board had made a consistent effort to induce the railroads and the committees to put all important information or evidence in the submission, and it was suggested in most cases oral submissions would not be necessary if detailed written statements were made when the case was submitted. Messrs. Fowler, Knoff, and McDonald explained the Board's procedure and the effort that had been made to have both sides furnish all information and evidence at the time the cases are submitted. The question of long briefs was discussed, and there was general agreement it was not necessary to have such voluminous briefs as had been submitted in some cases. The Board adjourned at 5 p.m. to meet separately tomorrow morning and to meet jointly in the board room at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. EXHIBIT No. 1 Minutes of Meeting July 26, 1937 Committee representing train and engine service organizations met in the board room of the First Division at 9 a.m. with the following present: Mr. J. A. Phillips, president, ORC. Mr. A. Johnston, grand chief engineer, B. of L.E. Mr. Fred W. Lewis, representing Mr. D. B. Robertson, B.L.F. & E. Mr. Wm. Bishop, representing Mr. A. F. Whitney, B of R.T. Mr. Paul M. Carter, representing Mr. T. C. Cashen, S.U. of N.A. Mr. R. E. Edrington, B.L.E Mr. G. H. Oram, ORC. Consideration was given to the proposal made by the representatives of the carriers in the meeting of July 26, after which recess was had, and our committee reconvened at 2 p.m. with the representatives of the railroads. The representatives of the railroads were: Mr. J. Cannon, chief operating officer, Missouri Pacific Lines. Mr. R. E. Woodruff, vice president, Erie Railroad. Mr. Wm. Atwill, vice president and general manager, Illinois Central Railway. Mr. J. T. Gillick, chief operating officer, C.M. St. P. & P. Railroad Co. The following was submitted for consideration by the representatives of the railroads: "The committee appointed by the carriers to confer with the heads of the organizations whose cases are handled before board No. 1, National Railroad Adjustment Board, consisting for the carriers of: "Mr. J. Cannon, chief operating officer, Missouri Pacific Lines. "Mr. W. K. Etter, vice president, A.T. & S.F. Railway System. "Mr. R. E. Woodruff, vice president, Erie Railroad. "Mr. Wm. Atwill, vice president and general manager, Illinois Central Railroad. "Mr. J. T. Gillick, chief operating officer, C.M., St. P. & P. Railroad Co. "Mr. F. B. Mitchell, general manager, B. & O. Railroad Co. "And for the employees: "Mr. J. A. Phillips, president, ORC. "Mr. A. Johnston, grand chief engineer, B. of L.E. "Mr. Fred W. Lewis, representing Mr. D. B. Robertson, B.L.F. & E. "Mr. Wm. Bishop, representing Mr. A. F. Whitney, B. of R.T. finds that the Board has before it 266 cases that have been heard and not decided, 1,679 cases docketed but not heard, 401 cases received, not docketed and not heard, indicating that some assistance must be rendered if either party hopes to have their cases more promptly disposed of. Therefore, it is recommended that the railroads and their committees who have cases before Board No. 1 again review the cases in an effort to dispose of them on the property. "In submitting disputes to the First Division a jointly agreed statement of facts will materially aid the Division in expediting its work. "Discussion was had on request of carriers that there should be a stenographic record kept of oral testimony. After considerable discussion with Board members, it was agreed that with the better preparation of cases now being made by both parties, stenographic records are not necessary except there should be a record of questions by Board members and answers thereto, which would be made a part of the record in the case. "Discussion was had on request of carriers of the necessity of placing a time limit on cases to be presented to the Board. While no understanding was reached, it was agreed the subject will receive further consideration." The organization representatives in sparate session gave consideration to the carriers' proposals and in turn submitted the following: "The committee appointed by the carriers to confer with the heads of the organizations whose cases are handled before Board No. 1, National Railroad Adjustment Board, consisting for the carriers of: "Mr. J. Cannon, chief operating officer, Missouri Pacific lines. "Mr. W. K. Etter, vice president, A.T. & S.F. Railway System. "Mr. R. E. Woodruff, vice president, Erie Railroad. "Mr. Wm. Atwill, vice president and general manager, Illinois Central Railway. "Mr. J. T. Gillick, chief operating officer, C.M. St. P. & P. Railroad Co. "and for the employees: "Mr. J. A. Phillips, president, ORC. "Mr. A. Johnston, grand chief engineer, B. of L.E. "Mr. Fred W. Lewis, representing Mr. D. B. Robertson, B.L.F. & E. "Mr. Wm. Bishop, representing Mr. A. F. Whitney, B. of R.T. "Mr. Paul M. Carter, representing Mr. T. C. Cashon, S.U. of N.A." finds that the Board has before it 266 cases that have been heard and not decided, 1,679 cases docketed but not heard, 401 cases received, not docketed and not heard. "It is recommended that the railroads and the committees meet and endeavor to dispose of as many of the unheard cases as possible in advance of hearing date. "If hearing date is set while the parties are negotiating, said parties may consistently, jointly request postponement of the hearing. "In submitting disputes to the First Division a jointly agreed statement of the facts will materially aid the Division in expediting its work and it is so recommended. "Discussion was had on request of carriers that there should be a stenographic record kept of oral testimony. After considerable discussion with Board members, it was agreed that with the better preparation of cases now being made by both parties, stenographic records are not necessary." After considerable discussion, agreement was reached as follows: "The committee appointed by the carriers to confer with a like committee of executives of the train and engine service organizations whose cases are handled by the National Adjustment Board, First Division, composed of the following representatives of the carriers: "Mr. J. Cannon, chief operating officer, Missouri Pacific Lines. "Mr. W. K. Etter, vice president, A.T. & S.F. Railway System. "Mr. R. E. Woodruff, vice president, Erie Railroad. "Mr. Wm. Atwill, vice president and general manager, Illinois Central Railway. "Mr. J. T. Gillick, chief operating officer, S.M. St. P. & P. Railroad Co. "Mr. F. B. Mitchell, general manager, B. & O. Railroad Co. "and the following representatives of the employees: "Mr. J. A. Phillips, president, ORC. "Mr. A. Johnston, grand chief engineer, B. of L.E. "Mr. Fred W. Lewis, representing Mr. D. B. Robertson, W.L.F. & E. "Mr. Wm. Bishop, representing Mr. A. F. Whitney, B. of R.T. "Mr. Paul M. Carter, representing Mr. T. C. Cashon, S.U. of N.A." finds that the Board has before it 266 cases that have been heard and not decided, 1,679 cases docketed but not heard, 401 cases received, not docketed and not heard. "It is recommended that the railroads and the committees meet and endeavor to dispose of as many of the unheard cases as possible in advance of hearing date. "If hearing date is set while the parties are negotiating, said parties may consistently, jointly request postponement of the hearing. "In submitting disputes to the First Division a jointly agreed statement of the facts will materially aid the Division in expediting its work. And it is so recommended." This agreement represents substantially counterproposal made by the organizations' representatives. It was agreed that the organizations would send a circular letter out to their general chairmen, advising them of the agreement reached and that the representatives of the railroads would do likewise, to Mr. Pelley, it being understood that the foregoing proposals in the nature of a recommendation to the carriers and the organizations, in no way interferes with the operation of the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which Board will proceed with its work under its rules. (Signed) A. JOHNSON, Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L.E. (Signed) FRED W. LEWIS, Representing Mr. D. B. Robertson, President, B. of L.F. & E. (Signed) J. A. PHILLIPS, President, O.R.C. (Signed) WM. BISHOP, Representing Mr. A. F. Whitney, President, B. of R.T. (Signed) PAUL M. CARTER, Representing Mr. T. C. Cashon, President, S.U. of N.A. EXHIBIT No. 2 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, Cleveland, Ohio, January 23, 1940. Chairmen, General Grievance Committees, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, United States. DEAR SIRS AND BROTHERS: For some time past we have been greatly concerned because of the accumulation of cases before Division No. 1, National Railroad Adjustment Board. Conferences have been held by committees representing the railways and committees representing the organizations without anything being accomplishd. Some weeks ago the transportation executives conferred with the labor members of the Board, in Cleveland, and the proposed program of the carriers to revise the rules governing the conduct of the Board was vetoed by us as a revision of said rules, according to our analysis, contemplated further delays in the handling of cases. Where all of the parties involved in a dispute have a desire to do the right thing it is usually adjudicated without much delay. There arise, however, disputes that we refer to as borderline disputes, which are referred to the Adjustment Board, and in such cases it is reasonable to anticipate that there might be a deadlock which would necessitate the appointing of a referee to decide said deadlock. When the law as amended became effective, we anticipated that for a short period many cases would be referred to the Board, and after decisions had been rendered that such decisions would settle or dispose of many principles involved, and thereafter the men and management would be willing to dispose of typical cases under decisions of the Board that had a definite bearing on such cases. Several years have passed, and there have been a sufficient number of decisions rendered by the Board to clarify any doubt that might have existed with reference to the proper application of many of our schedule rules. However, a number of railroad managements have declined to recognize the weight and force of decisions handed down by Division 1 of the Board, and where our committees have 60 or 70 claims predicated upon the same rule, involving the same principle, these managements are requiring them to make an equal number of submissions to the Board, which has resulted in blocking the progress of the Board, and has brought about great delay in the handling of disputes, which delay has created much dissatisfaction and is harmful to the men as well as to the carriers. There are several hundred cases now pending on an eastern railroad, and the principles involved in most of these cases have already been settled by the Board. We have approximately 500 cases before the Board from another eastern railroad, and one of the vice presidents of this carrier, who is well informed, is alleged to have made the statement that there were but 17 principles involved. If this officer is correct, then Division No. 1 of the Board should be called upon to adjust but 17 cases; namely, a case representing each of the principles referred to. However, we are confronted with the stupid, unbusinesslike spectacle of being obliged to take 500 cases to the Board instead of 17. Such philosophy on the part of the carriers does not have the ring of cooperation, and indicates a desire on their part to delay the handling of grievances by clogging the channels of the Board with a lot of cases that should be disposed of on the ground under the terms of the contract involved as interpreted by the committees and concurred in by Division 1 of the Board. This letter is written for the purpose of securing information from each of you with reference to the number of cases that you have before the Board at this time, together with the number of cases that have been denied and will later be referred to the Board, and the number of principles involved in such cases. To illustrate my point-in your reply you might say: "We now have 50 cases before the Board, 100 cases that are being written up, total 150 cases, in which 11 principles are involved. Of the principles involved nine of them have heretofore been passed upon by the Board." Upon receipt of this information we will make an analysis with the thought of taking steps (if the other transportation organizations will go along) to refrain from referring cases to the Board where the principle has heretofore been settled, and submit such cases in a strike ballot to the membership, thereby placing the issue at the doorsteps of those managements that are attempting to wreck the law that has been provided for the settlement of disputes between carriers and their employees. Will you favor me with a reply to reach my office not later than February 15, 1940. DEAR SIRS AND BROTHERS: During the past 3 years we have held several conferences with railroad executives and on various occasions have discussed among ourselves the unfortunate situation existing on the First Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, due to an accumulation of cases in that Division, which on September 1, 1941, exceeded 5,500; in other words, the Division is about 4 years behind in its work. Many of these cases came from but a few railroads. To illustrate this point, I have information that 2,330 or 42 percent of said cases came from 4 railroads as follows: I am enclosing a statement showing the details of the particular cases referred to above. An analysis of the situation shows the following factors to be largely responsible for the number of cases presented to the Division and the delay in handling them: First: The refusal of the carriers to recognize precedents already established by decisions of the First Division, and the requirement that the organizations submit hundreds of typical cases for decision, which has created a topheavy docket. Second: The iniquitous attitude of the carrier members on the First Division in declining to subdivide Division 1—which is permitted under the act—for the purpose of expediting the handling of cases. It will be recalled that the carriers wrecked the old railway labor law by refusing to comply with the provisions of the law when organizations with limited economic strength were involved. Further, the record shows that in practically every instance where the weaker organizations requested arbitration the carriers declined to arbitrate. It is evident that the railroads who are now attempting to emasculate the rules under which their employees work are likewise attempting to destroy the usefulness of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and unless the railway labor organizations, and especially the transportation group, take immediate steps to defend the act and reestablish the worth of the Board, permitting the law to function as was intended by the Congress of the United States, we will have another wrecked law on our hands. In the hope of arresting the efforts of the railways to destroy the law and impede the work of the Board, I suggest that we adopt the policy and take the position that grievances (schedule violations) involving schedule rules where typical cases have been passed upon by the First Division, be not hereafter referred to said Division, but placed in a strike ballot and prosecuted under the laws of the respective organizations. Let me further suggest that instructions be issued to our chairmen along the above indicated lines and that the Texas & Pacific, Southern Pacific (Pacific), Louisville & Nashville, and Pennsylvania Railroad, be given special treatment. Fraternally yours, A. F. WHITNEY, President. EXHIBIT No. 4. Hon. JOSEPH B. EASTMAN, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, Director, Office of Defense Transportation, DEAR SIR: While conferring with you and your associates on September 4, 1942, Mr. D. B. Robertson, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, and the undersigned called your attention to the effort on the part of some of the railroads to destroy the usefulness of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, by failing to settle disputes with committees representing the organizations, and since that time there has been no improvement in the situation. As a matter of fact the Pennsylvania management is the only one that has seemed to take any interest in attempting to relieve this deplorable situation. I am enclosing statement furnished by the Secretary of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, showing the cases docketed and pending by the railroads as of August 31, 1942, and you will note that there was a total of 5,824. |