EXHIBIT No. 12 Hon. JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, July 31, 1963. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS: Under date of July 12, 1963, you wrote to Mr. Francis A. O'Neill of the National Mediation Board, concerning inquiries received by you from railroad employees in connection with "extreme delays encountered by them in obtaining settlement under the Railway Labor Act of disputes arising out of interpretation and application of agreements between the railroads and the unions representing the employees," your letter asking for reply to eight questions propounded by you. On July 17, Mr. O'Neill wrote you saying that he asked Chairman J. B. Zink of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in Chicago to furnish you with the desired information. The National Railroad Adjustment Board consists of four Divisions, each authorized by section 3, first (h) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, to have jurisdiction over disputes from employees in the craft or class assigned to them, respectively. The First Division has "jurisdiction over disputes involving train and yard service employees of carriers; that is, engineers, firemen, hostlers and outside hostler helpers, conductors, trainmen and yard-service employees." Mr. Zink has called upon the First Division to prepare its portion of the reply to be sent to you and the information will then, presumably, be consolidated with similar data received from the other three Divisions of the NRAB. The undersigned author of this letter is the representative of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen on the First Division, NRAB, with offices in room 1311, 39 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Ill., 60603. Time being of the essence and the existing conditions on the First Division being so rotten and deplorable, I am compelled to compile my own "true and accurate" report taken from the records of the Executive Secretary of this Division. The figure given reflect the actual production during the period covered and cannot, therefore, be disputed by any carrier member of this Division. The information you desire requires more than just figures. A full and complete explanation must accompany these figures to show the causes for our miserable and shameful record of productivity. While the carrier members of this Division cannot shy away from the factual record, I know them well enough to predict that they will subscribe to no instrument that will serve to indict them in the eyes of Congress. Hence, you can expect a long delay in receiving from this Division a report signed by the carrier members that will convey to you the factual situation as it now obtains, and the causes therefor. I have long been crusading for an improvement in our functions. Several years ago when Mr. Daniel P. Loomis, now president of the Association of American Railroads, was in charge of the Association of Western Railways, I had lunch with him at the Chicago Athletic Club, together with Mr. G. J. Willingham, president of the Peoria and Pekin Union Railroad. Mr. Willingham had arranged for this luncheon and at that time I gave Mr. Loomis a full report on our functions and asked him if he would not use his good offices to bring about an improvement in the attitude of the carrier members here. My pleadings were of no avail because he did nothing and nothing was ever done. In fact, conditions continued to grow worse. In support of this assertion that things continued to grow worse, I am also attaching a copy of my letter addressed to the five carrier members on this Division under date of April 5, 1962, which is selfexplanatory. This report would not be complete without my handing you two other recent reports passing over my desk. One deals with the salaries and expenses paid to First Division referees during the fiscal year 1963. A total of $30,762.07 was paid to six (6) referees to decide 112 cases, at a cost of $274.66 plus, per case. This does not include other costs such as rent, salaries, etc., in the administration of the Division. Had the Division been functioning as it should, at least 85 perecnt of these 112 cases could have, undoubtedly, been disposed of without the aid of a referee by following precedent awards of long standing. Next is the report of the recommendations by the Estimates and Appropriations and Disbursements Committee, wherein it will be noted that we have reached the point to where it is anticipated that it will take in excess of $1 million of the taxpayers' money to keep this burlesque show running for the fiscal year 1965. It is interesting to note that this figure is approximately $200,000 more than the two previous fiscal years, which is self-evident that the less we do, the more money it takes to make it worse. Considering our past performance, no improvement is in sight so, the Bureau of the Budget is to be asked for $1 million to keep in motion for the fiscal year 1965 one of the most disgraceful agencies of the Government. Yours very truly, B. W. FERN, Labor Member, First Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board Representing the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. APRIL 5, 1962. MESSRS. H. J. REESER, H. W. BURTNESS, E. T. HORSLEY, H. V. BOARDWELL, J. E. CARLISLE, Carrier Members First Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board. GENTLEMEN: I am attaching, hereto, some very illuminating statistics from an analysis of case handling by my office during the period July 11, 1952, to April 1, 1962, from award No. 15991 to award No. 20093. It will be noted that during the approximate 10-year period covered by this analysis, my office recognized our responsibility by writing out a total of 929 dockets and handed to the referees a total of 613 dockets where in no briefs were prepared and where we either stood on the record, or by agreement with the carrier members, furnished the referee prepared findings either denying or dismissing the claim, making a grand total of 1,542 dockets. During this same period it will be noted 21 dockets were sustained by 3 carrier members, without the aid of a referee. I say three carrier members, because during this 10-year period neither Mr. Reeser nor Mr. Burtness ever agree to sustain a single claim on their own, forcing us to take every docket assigned to those two carrier members to a referee for an award. The performance on the part of the carrier members during the period covered by this analysis is nothing short of a disgrace. However, I fully appreciate the fact that no matter what I might say here will have any effect on any of you gentlemen, because my past experience has been that no amount of degrading will change the situation. You are all prone to criticism and when criticized over your performance as members of this governmental agency, it runs off of your backs like water off a duck. It shall be my continued purpose to maintain an accurate record of our functioning as an adjustment board in the hopes that some day, in the not too far distant future, we will have immediately available for someone in Government circles an on the spot account of just how putrid the performance of the carrier members really is. In the meantime, since you gentlemen insist that every docket must be passed upon by a referee, I will be powerless during the year 1962, to prevent you from making this year one of the worst in productivity in the 28 years of our existence. B. W. FERN, Labor Member. Analysis of case handling by the office of Mr. B. W. Fern during his tenure of office on the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, July 11, 1952, to April 1, 1962, award No. 15591 to award No. 20093 613 1, 542 21 Dockets not briefed, standing on the record or, prepared findings denying or dismissing the claim (item b)- Total items a and b___. Dockets paid by carrier members during same period‒‒‒‒. Total dockets handled by the division during same period, excluding 248 supplemental Board awards__. Total Trainmen dockets handled.. Balance to the other 4 organizations this period.. Trainmen's percentage record---- 4, 255 1, 561 2, 694 36. 7 REPLY TO EIGHT QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY HON. JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, MEMBER of Congress, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS, WASHINGTON, D.C., IN HIS LETTER OF JULY 12, 1963, ADDRESSED TO HON. FRANCIS A. O'NEILL, JR., NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C., RE STATUS OF CASE HANDLING AND PRODUCTIVITY OF THE DIVISIONS, NRAB., PREPARED BY BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN'S REPRESENTATIVE, B. W. FERN, ON THE FIRST DIVISION, NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, CHICAGO, ILL. (NOTE.-Congressman Williams' inquiry addresses itself to conditions on all four Divisions of the NRAB. This reply covers the situation on the First Division only and is being prepared separate and apart from one said to be in process of compilation by a two-man committee appointed for the purpose. It is being so handled because of a sincere belief that conditions on the First Division warrant separate treatment in sufficient detail to acquaint the Congressman and his committee thereof.) Question No. 1 relates to this statement, second paragraph of the July 12, 1963, letter: "I understand that in many cases it takes 5 or more years-sometimes as much as 10 years-to obtain a decision on the merits where such a dispute arises, except in cases involving discharge or suspension of the employee, in which case as much as a year or more may elapse." The question itself reads: 1. Are there in fact delays of the type I have mentioned above? The answer to this question must be preceded by an explanation of our procedures in handling mine run time claims, as contrasted with disputes involving claims for restoration to service of dismissed employees. The First Division gives exedited handling to all reinstatement cases-those where an employee is out of service pending our decision. They are processed ahead of other disputes to be handled with the first batch of cases in line therefor, as soon after being docketed as possible. Mine run time claims (including disciplinary disputes where the man is not being withheld from service) are handled in the order in which they have been docketed, the oldest ones being first out for next handling. Thus, a case involving reinstatement to service will be handled with the first group of miscellaneous dockets being taken up after docketing of the reinstatement case, even though the latter may have been docketed within the month or slightly longer, whereas the others, being taken in order, may have waited on the list for 5 or 6 years. Before making direct reply to the specific question, we must point out the distinction between the date of the claim or dispute in a given case and its docketing date here at the Division. A dispute arises on the property with reference to an occurrence on a given date, say August 10, 1953. Under our schedule agreements, such claims or disputes are initiated at the local level and then must be processed on the property in conformity with procedural requirements, in successive steps up the ladder, until handled between the highest designated representatives of both sides, in correspondence and conference. If, after exhausting all avenues of settlement the parties are still in dispute, the agreement usually contains a time limit in which the case may be submitted to the First Division (or competent tribunal such as a Special Board of Adjustment on the property involved) for decision. On the average, it may be said this processing of the case on the property takes approximately 2 years; when the submissions of both parties have been filed with us, the case is “docketed," i.e., given a docket number and placed upon our working calendar as of the date it is docketed, and, in the case of our hypothetical dispute, this would probably be in the latter part of 1955, or early in 1956. The dispute would be about 2% to 3 years old by the time it is docketed. This reply will deal in the age of dockets as of the date submitted to us and docketed, not with the date of the claim. Obviously, the Division can only be held to account for the delay in deciding the case which occurs after it has been filed with us, and not for the time consumed in progressing it in the usual manner on the property. The average age of cases decided by the Division at this time, calculated from the date of docketing in the manner described next above, is reflected by these figures, taken directly from our records: First, we have checked 66 dockets which have been deadlocked, a referee appointed to decide them, and which are at this date in line to be decided next. although not actually decided; 43 of them are miscellaneous time claims, and the average age of all is 7 years and 7 months; 23 are discipline cases which have been expedited, and the average age of these dockets is 11 months. Second, we have checked the 94 awards rendered since January 1, 1963, and their age, being the lapse of time from the date docketed until the date actually decided, is: Miscellaneous time claims decided: 70, the average of which, from time docketed here until the decision was rendered, 6 years and 7 months, plus. Reinstatement cases, which are expedited: 24 decided, average age of the cases. 11 months. The range in time on the cases reported above, is: miscellaneous time claims: the fastest disposition was 58 months (4 years and 10 months); the longest lag, 8 years and 11 months. Reinstatement cases: 1 decided within 1 month and another in 2 months after being docketed; the longest lag, 21 months, or 1 year and 9 months. Summing up, these figures show that although the last 94 cases decided aver aged 6 years 7 months old for time claims and 11 months for reinstatement cases, the cases now pending before referees and next out for decision, average 7 years 7 months for time claims and 11 months for reinstatement cases. The reason why the average of pending time claims has increased by 1 year is the fact that the productivity of the First Division has reached an alltime low. During the first full 10 years of operation, the First Division decided almost 1,000 cases per year and about two-thirds of them were decided without referee assistance. In the year 1961, this Board decided only 322 cases; in the year 1962, we reached our record low-deciding only 163 cases for the entire year. Thus far this year, as of the end of July, we have decided only 94 cases for the 7 months-averaging a little better than 13 per month. Bearing in mind that the Division has not yet had its vacation period (3 weeks) nor the Christmas-New Year holidays, which will mean at least 1 month's "productivity" lost, it is obvi ous we will probably decide less than 150 cases for the entire year 1963-barring some stimulant being applied in the interim, which is a remote possibility. In conclusion on question No. 1, it is established by the records here that dockets take 1 year longer to reach decision than they did a year ago and every indication is this lag will grow worse; there is no immediate prospect for improvement. If this prediction is realized, we may anticipate dockets laying here for 9 years or more, in the very near future, before reaching a decision. Question 2. Are these delays general, covering all cases; or are they isolated instances? Answer. What we have said in answer to question No. 1 is equally applicable to all pending dockets in the respective groups-miscellaneous time claims and reinstatement cases. For example, we still have pending a handful of cases docketed in 1954 and, after them, more than 100 which were docketed in 1955. Just these cases, plus reinstatement cases, which stand to be expedited and handled at about the same time, comprise better than a year's output at the present rate and they are not even deadlocked to a referee as yet. They probably won't be for a year or more which means they will then be 9 and 10 years old and possibly 6 months away from reaching decision. After them, of course, come the hundreds filed each year, in 1956, 1957, etc., which will be covered when we discuss the pending backlog. Question 3. Is there a large backlog of cases of this type? Answer. The backlog as of June 30, 1963, totals 3,793 cases. The size of it is best illustrated by thinking in terms of length of time to dispose of it at the present rate on the First Division. We have shown the Division decided 163 cases in 1962 and, projecting the existing pace to the end of 1963, approximately 140 will be disposed of this year. Averaging the 2 figures gives us a pace of 150 per year and, if we do not continue to slow down, and if the backlog does not continue to increase, this means it would take the First Division 25 years to decide the cases now pending. Absent some stimulating force, nothing of the sort will occur because (1) the pace continues to slow down and (2) the backlog continues to grow. Question 4 (first part). If there is a backlog, is that backlog increasing or decreasing? Answer. The best source for the answer to this question is the caseload report of the First Division. To make our reply truly reflective of the trend for a sufficient period of time to establish just what it is, we are listing figures for the years from 1957 to June 30, 1963: These are taken from a report prepared as of March 1, 1963, to which we will append the final figure as of June 30, 1963. We have taken figures to present two pictures: the steady growth of the backlog on a monthly basis, which is illustrated by the fact that more cases are docketed than decided each month. The left-hand and center columns cover this and the months reported are representative of the rest, this being attested to by the steady growth of backlog on an annual basis. The column of figures on the right hand show the steady increase in the backlog, annually. The table covers the period of 7 years and 4 months from February 1957 to June 30, 1963. It shows an increase in our caseload (backlog) of approximately 200 per year, and this, in turn, is greater than our yearly output of decided cases in 1962 and very likely to be in excess of what we dispose of in 1963, by some 60 or more. Question 4 (second part). Is it likely that present trends will continue? Answer. Yes. Our reply to part 1 was prepared in anticipation of part 2. We have covered a 7-year period to prove the lasting nature of the trend. For |