Justification Of Items PERSONAL SERVICES Salaries of office personnel The number of employees for the fiscal year 1967 is estimated at 66, the same as for the current year, at an estimated cost of $476,600. The increase over 1966 is due to statutory pay and step increases. Little turnover is expected during the current fiscal year or in fiscal year 1967, so there is not much opportunity for savings in that area. None of the Board's personnel is engaged in public relations or publicity activities, nor is there any employee engaged as much as half time in personnel work. Salaries of referees The act creating the National Railroad Adjustment Board provides that in case of a deadlock or inability to secure a majority vote of the division members, a referee is selected to sit with the division as a member thereof to make an award. Referees are now paid a salary of $100 per day, actual and necessary travel expenses, and per diem in lieu of subsistence. Referees are usually selected from among such groups as judges, attorneys, professors of universities, or labor relations consultants. Their qualifications must be of the highest. Referees were required 2,550 days in the settlement of 1,171 cases in the fiscal year 1965. For the current fiscal year, we hope our funds will be sufficient for 2,550 referee days during which we expect they will participate in the settlement of 1,180 cases. The estimate for 1967 is for 2,550 referee days, during which we expect they will participate in the settlement of some 1,190 cases. There follows a list of referees rendering services during the fiscal year 1965. FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE WITNESSES WILLIAM E. SIMKIN, DIRECTOR ROBERT H. MOORE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR L. E. EADY, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT WILLOUGHBY ABNER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR 1 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1964, $39 thousand (1965 adjustments, -$5 thousand); 1965, $11 thousand, 1966, $31 thousand; 1967, $34 thousand. Mr. FOGARTY. Proceed, Mr. Simkin. Mr. SIMKIN. We have submitted, of course, our detailed proposals in our official submission. GENERAL STATEMENT I also have a statement which has been presented this morning, which I will not read in its entirety. I will just highlight a few high spots. (The prepared statement follows:) It is my pleasure to appear again before this committee to present and explain our appropriation requirements for fiscal year 1967. The intervening 12 months, since my last appearance, have witnessed many serious, prolonged and oftentimes exciting contract negotiations. Several of these have been headlined in the newspapers and other media because of threatened or actual work stoppages. It has been a difficult year. However, the central fact remains that the vast majority of contract negotiations were concluded without recourse to strike action. Lost time due to strikes in calendar year 1965 was limited to eighteen one-hundredths of 1 percent of time worked-the same figure as 1964. This was accomplished largely through hard and persistent bargaining between the parties, aided frequently by intensified mediation work by the Service. Our own records furnish data in support of this point. For the fiscal year 1965, the Service received some 95,900 notices of disputes which were compressed through consolidation and screenouts into a total of 21,262 assignments. During the same period the Service closed 21,071 cases, with work stoppages recorded in only 8.5 percent of the closed assignments. During the first half of fiscal 1966, the workload and record of accomplishment increased moderately above the fiscal 1965 data. This, with a few notable exceptions, is indicative of a basically sound labor relations atmosphere in the Nation. The mediation function was of very considerable value in many of these negotiations, both in preventing stoppages from developing and in shortening the duration of those that did develop. The Service in particular works intensively and aggressively in all negotiating situations in which it is known that the companies are involved in defense production. Close liaison exists between the Service and the military agencies through which we are quickly alerted to the degree of defense interest in specific negotiations. These cases receive priority mediation attention. In the past fiscal year there were about 600 cases (8 percent of all active cases) in which defense production was definitely known to be involved. A few of the more prominent ones in which military agencies indicated a high degree of interest were: Electric Boat Co., McDonnell Aircraft Co., Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Rome Cable Co., Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, North American, and General Dynamics Corp. As the Nation moves to a higher level of defense industry production, the Service will intensify its mediation efforts in those labor-management disputes involving defense plants. The budget proposal for fiscal year 1967 is based on the twofold premise that there will be continued acceleration in the dispute mediation workload, and that more concerted efforts are needed in the area of preventive mediation activity. The active dispute mediation workload in the past fiscal year was the heaviest on record. This high level of activity, I have no doubt, will continue for the indefinite future as the manpower situation tightens and the Nation approaches maximum production levels. Bargaining negotiations in the future will feel the impact of these two important developments. Beyond crisis dispute mediation, the Service also seeks the long-term improvement of the labor-management relationship. This is the essence of the preventive mediation concept. It is one of the more significant developments in collective bargaining in recent years, and, after it becomes better known and more widely accepted, the preventive mediation idea will, I believe, have an important impact on the future improvement of labor-management relationships. There are al ready many solid accomplishments in the record to support this long-range view of the value and possibilities inherent in the preventive mediation notion. Two very recent situations are illustrative. In the General Dynamics (Fort Worth, Tex.) and Olin Mathieson (East Alton, Ill.) cases, an extensive Service commitment for preventive mediation in the future was a major factor in securing agreement. The Service, in this respect, considers that it has a positive responsibility to foster and develop a wider acceptance of the new development. The work is performed by the same staff of mediators who assist in the mediation of crisis disputes. Hence, these men are in a unique position to uncover individual possibilities for effective preventive mediation programs. In the last analysis, of course, the parties themselves must be willing to accept the mediator's proposal and work together to give it an earnest trial. Given these conditions, a wellplanned preventive proposal is more than likely to succeed beyond initial expectations. The urgent need, from the Service viewpoint, is for sufficient manpower to work steadily toward achievement of the dual program goals. The proposal for 1967 is a further step in that direction. In terms of financial requirements, an appropriation of $7,100,000 is proposed for fiscal year 1967. This is an increase of $381,000 over the current year's anticipated available funds. In terms of manpower increases, seven mediator positions, one labor relations economist position, and five secretarial and typist supporting positions are proposed. Also included are funds for annualization costs for mediator positions budgeted for only a portion of the current year in accordance with our usual practice in respect to new mediator positions, and promotion to the next higher grade of new mediators who successfully complete the usual 1-year probationary-training period. Funds included in the amount of $30.000 represent restoration of pay increase cost absorption in the current fiscal year. Other nonmanpower increases of a supporting nature totaling $45.000 (net) are included for personnel benefits, travel, communications, and other miscellaneous items. The money amounts and manpower here requested and approved by the Bureau of the Budget are substantially below our initial estimates. We agreed reluctantly with the Bureau of the Budget on these lesser figures only because of the President's necessary program to limit expenditures to the greatest possible extent in view of Vietnam. I affirm to the members of this committee that the full amount is necessary for carrying out our mediation and preventive mediation responsibilities. WORKLOAD Mr. SIMKIN. This last fiscal year has been a pretty tough period in our work, as you gather from the newspapers. It has been the highest workload year in the history of the Service. We have had a number of very important disputes, especially involving defense. I think we can, with perhaps some lack of modesty, say that we have done a more effective mediation job. The lost time last year due to strikes was eighteen one-hundredths of 1 percent, which was the same figure as the year before, and this was in spite of the fact that the disputes unquestionably were tougher, there were more of them, and more involving defense. It is important to note that in the last 3 years we have had occasion to use Taft-Hartley boards only once. That was in the longshore case. Furthermore, in the last 3 years there has been the necessity for Presidential boards, or active intervention on the part of the Department of Labor, in only a very few cases, notably, longshore, maritime, and steel. Except for that, all cases have been handled by the Service. PRIORITY OF DEFENSE CASES I would like to call particular attention to the fact that as the Vietnam situation has heated up, the defense cases assume a much greater degree of priority. In the last fiscal year, in terms of numbers of cases, we had over 600 in which there was a very direct defense involvement, and where we worked closely with the Defense Department in connection with settlements. Those 600 represented 8 percent of our total number of active cases. Probably the most outstanding illustrations were the round of aerospace negotiations this last year which, fortunately, were concluded with only three strikes. A short strike at Boeing, a short strike at Aero Jet, and a short strike at McDonnell Aircraft. But all these disputes were resolved by the Service, and many others without strikes, and without the kind of delay that occurred 3 years ago. LABOR RELATIONS CLIMATE IN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY Three years ago, for example, in this same sequence of cases, there were three Taft-Hartley injunctions, there were two special Presidential boards, and most of the contracts 3 years ago were not resolved until months after the expiration date. This year they have been resolved one at a time as they have come up. As a result, I think the labor relations climate, of the whole aerospace industry is much better than it was following last time. Perhaps our single most outstanding case was the one recently concluded at Fort Worth, Tex., at the General Dynamics plant which makes the F-111. All indications by the parties and everyone else who knew anything about that situation, were, we were headed for a strike. By a special mediation effort a strike was not only avoided, but the feeling on the part of the negotiators at the conclusion of that session of mediations is that it probably bodes well for the future. |