Page images
PDF
EPUB

PREVENTIVE MEDIATION

In prior years we have discussed with you and we again emphasize our preventive mediation program. This program is very definitely getting off the ground. Both numerically and in terms of quality of the work that is being done, it is much better than it has ever been. We are putting special stress on this program in the year ahead, even over and above what we have done. It is instructive to note, for example, both in the Fort Worth, Tex., situation of General Dynamics and also in the Olin-Mathieson situation that was settled a while ago a long accumulation of grievances and troubles in the plant had built up to an almost certain strike situation. One of the major reasons we were able to get a settlement of those particular disputes was that we were able to offer a preventive mediation program for the future.

At Forth Worth, they have written this program right into the contract. Of course, we have a continuing commitment and obligation.

INCREASE REQUESTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1967

Now, in terms of the specifics of our request, they are before you. I will not add much at this point. We are requesting an increase in the amount of $375,000 to bring us up to a total budget figure of $7.1 million.

This increase, in terms of manpower, would mean 7 more mediators, 4 more clerical positions, and 2 more positions in the national office, a total of 13 additional positions.

This was very substantially below our proposal to the Bureau of the Budget. To put it bluntly, we negotiated with the Bureau of the Budget on this matter. In view of the President's insistence on holding expenditures down to the bare minimum, and in spite of the fact that we know that our involvement particularly in defense industries will be heavier for the future, we agreed to cut our additional personnel and our additional money request down a little bit under half of what we proposed.

The fact that we agreed means we think we will be able to do the job with it. It is not the number of personnel we would like to have, but I think with the President's budget that is before you, we will be able in this fiscal year ahead to continue to do the job that is entrusted

to us.

BUDGET BUREAU ACTION ON ORIGINAL REQUEST

Mr. FOGARTY. Your request is for $7.1 million, an increase of $375,000 over the funds available for 1966, including the estimated pay supplemental. As you just said, this will provide for 13 additional positions, but you asked for 26; is that right?

Mr. SIMKIN. We asked originally for 54.

Mr. FOGARTY. You asked for 54 and the Bureau of the Budget only allowed you 13?

Mr. SIMKIN. That is right.
Mr. FOGARTY. Out of 54?

Mr. SIMKIN. That is right.

Mr. FOGARTY. It seems to me you are not going to be able to do a very good job if you need 54 additional positions and you only got 13?

Mr. SIMPKIN. We understand the problem that the Bureau of the Budget has in connection with Vietnam. We will do a job. I am not saying we will not be back for more people in the next year.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought the President said we could provide guns and butter. Did he not say that?

Mr. SIMKIN. I think he did.

RESEARCH ECONOMIST

Mr. FOGARTY. One of the requested positions is a research economist. What is a research economist?

Mr. SIMKIN. We originated this request and the Bureau felt we needed it to provide more precise factual information with particular reference to our preventive mediation program in terms of

Mr. FOGARTY. Who thought this?

Mr. SIMKIN. The Bureau of the Budget. We made the original request for this position. This research job would not in any sense duplicate what the BLS does. It would enable us to analyze our own statistics and our own case picture in a way that is not possible now. Mr. FOGARTY. How does this type of work differ from that done by the Labor Management Services Division, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Mr. SIMKIN. This is almost solely working with our own figures, and our own case material whereas any work that the Labor Management Services does is working with more general countrywide problems.

NATIONAL LABOR PANEL

Mr. FOGARTY. How active has the National Labor Panel been during the past year?

Mr. SIMKIN. We have had five meetings this last year. These are usually a day or a day and a half meetings. They have been extremely helpful to us. We have just concluded one of our seminars and we have another one coming up. Next week we expect about half of the Panel members to be with us 2 or 3 days at the seminar in addition to the five meetings that will be held during the year's time. This is a very able group of people, and the kind of advice they have been able to give us has been very valuable.

Mr. MOORE. Plus contact between seminars.

STATE ACTIVITY IN MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION

Mr. FOGARTY. Is there any trend in the degree of the States' activities in the mediation and conciliation field.

Mr. SIMKIN. I would not say there is any significant trend. We have made very significant progress, I think, in working out better relationships with the State services. I am sure you know from our discussions before, we have worked out a code of conduct for mediators by collaboration with the State mediation agencies. This has been helpful.

FMCS RELATIONS WITH STATE MEDIATION AGENCIES

We have established a liaison committee with four representatives from the FMCS and four or five representatives from the State agencies. We meet two or three times a year to discuss our common problems and work out cooperative relationships.

In addition to that, the regional directors in the various areas meet personally with the heads of the State agencies in those particular areas, and we have made very significant progress. We have what amounts to a grievance procedure. If the State people have a complaint in connection with some activity of a Federal mediator, they now have an avenue of presenting it through the liaison committee. Similarly, if we have a complaint about the activity of a State mediator in a case we are also involved in, we have a way of taking this up and working it out.

They call their organization the Association of Mediation Agencies (ALMA). They have their annual meeting scheduled for early September 1966, the Labor Day weekend. This year they have invited the regional directors from all of our regions to meet with them at that meeting. We expect to do this, together with several of us from the national staff.

Mr. FLOOD. What would be an example of conduct on behalf of one of your mediators to which a State agency of mediation could object? What would be an example?

Mr. SIMKIN. In several of the States, what we really have is overlapping jurisdiction, that is, the State law provides for mediation of disputes by the State staff and the Federal law

Mr. FLOOD. You have assumed jurisdiction?

Mr. SIMKIN. We, of course, have jurisdiction too under Federal law.

Mr. FLOOD. You have assumed jurisdiction. What is an example of why a State mediator director would object to what one of your people did under those circumstances?

Mr. SIMKIN. In some of the States there has been an informal division of labor.

Mr. FLOOD. What does that mean?

Mr. SIMKIN. Where a particular case traditionally has been handled by the State and certain other cases are handled traditionally by our Service. We have had some instances where in spite of the fact that the tradition has been for the State to handle it, we have had urgent requests on the part of one or both parties to get in a case in a particular year. If that sort of situation develops, where we have a clear-cut request to get in where we have not usually participated, sometimes the State people are unhappy about it and we have to work it out with them.

Mr. MOORE. Another illustration, our conduct for mediators requires if a Federal mediator is going to call a meeting and the State has already been active, he contacts the representative of the State and discusses the problem and works out a procedure that will not be embarrassing to either. If he fails to do this, this would be a violation of our agreement. The State man could file a grievance.

Mr. FLOOD. Actually, it is almost always a case where someone inadvertently ruffles their tail feathers?

Mr. MOORE. A press release by the Federal mediator that does not mention State participation.

Mr. FLOOD. It would be difficult for me to imagine your people doing anything sufficiently improper to warrant a protest.

Mr. MOORE. They ruffle feathers, and it is just like any other grievance. If you can blow off steam, it does not accumulate.

Mr. SIMKIN. I have a few copies of the FMCS-ALMA code of conduct.

Mr. MOORE. This code tries to outline what we feel to be the most professional approach to mediation, and if there is any violation of that code by either side, a grievance could occur.

Mr. FLOOD. You were talking about a meeting Labor Day weekend of your mediators and these agencies.

Mr. SIMKIN. All State and city.

PRIVATE MEDIATORS

Mr. FLOOD. Are there any private agencies that engage in this? Mr. SIMKIN. Yes; there are in a number of situations. There are a number of particular companies and unions who have retained private individuals to act as their mediators. The Kaiser Steel and the Steelworkers is an illustration where they have retained over a period of years George Taylor, Dave Cole, and John Dunlop.

Mr. FLOOD. There is such a thing as a professional mediator who works for hire in the private sector?

Mr. SIMKIN. Most of the people who do this work, like George Taylor and Dave Cole, are professional.

Mr. FLOOD. There are such people?

Mr. SIMKIN. Both professional mediators and arbitrators, and there is only a limited number unfortunately, of men of stature like the names I mentioned who are very effective. There are some private individuals who are highly effective in mediation.

Mr. FLOOD. I do not mean people who have stature in the private sector and who the President or you for some reason would invite in. I do not mean that type of person. There are people who hold themselves out for hire as professional mediators.

Mr. SIMKIN. Very few outside of our service, the Federal Government and the State.

Mr. FLOOD. It is not much of a profession then in number?
Mr. SIMKIN. No.

NEW YORK TRANSIT STRIKE

Mr. FLOOD. If by an act of God, which frequently happens, there was a disaster in a community, a flood, an earthquake, or some other natural disaster, immediately the Army Engineers or the nearest military installation will send trucks, or tanks-whatever equipment they have that is needed. We saw them here over the weekend. Some nearby military installation sent tanks to help fire engines that could not get through the snow to fires. This obviously did not go through the highest channels. This was not a declaration of disaster and a request by the Governor. But it is the practice and the custom for any Federal agency to at once send in its people without paperwork and redtape. Why did you fellows not go into the New York strike? Mr. SIMKIN. We did not go into the New York strike for two

reasons:

One is, there is a very real question under the law as to whether we have the right

Mr. FLOOD. Do not misunderstand me. I did not say why did you not go in and assume jurisdiction and take on mediation. You are skilled, highly skilled. You have experts. You have technicians. You are supposed to be the best. Why did you sit on your hands without informally volunteering your skills and abilities and technique until the last minute?

Mr. SIMKIN. The other reason I was coming to was, for many years in the New York transit situation, the city and the parties, by mutual agreement, have had their own private board of mediation. For many years it was George Taylor, Dave Cole, and Ted Keel. This year they changed the composition of the board, they selected a new board by agreement between the then Mayor-elect Lindsay and Wagner and parties.

Mr. FLOOD. You knew they were on a collision course and Mike Quill was going to have a strike come hell or high water. You knew and everyone else knew. Knowing that, why did you sit calmly by with all your skills and ability and not even volunteer? You should have put on a wig and a mustache and gone up there.

Mr. SIMKIN. They had no lack of mediators. They had good mediators.

Mr. FLOOD. I am not talking about what they had. I am talking about what you did.

Mr. SIMKIN. There are situations where you can have too many mediators. The problem was not lack of mediation in that case. As a matter of fact, in mid-December I had a discussion, a get-acquainted session with Mayor-elect Lindsay and we discussed this problem at that time. There was a general agreement between Lindsay and me that in view of the private board they already had underway, we should not get into it.

Mr. FLOOD. I think it is important the record show that. I will tell you what you should do if you feel so fit-and I think you should. At this point in the record I would protect my flanks against the kind of charges being made against you, and have the record show what happened, as far as you can, without causing any trouble, so you will have some evidence to protect yourself if you are jumped on this.

(The information supplied follows:)

A sizable number of FMCS people were well aware of the probable difficulty that would be encountered when the existing contract pertaining to the New York City transit labor-management relationship would expire on December 31, 1965. This group included the regional director and New York City based mediators as well as myself and associates in Washington.

All were also well acquainted with the past practices and preferences of the involved parties to utilize the facilities of the private panel of mediators (Feinsinger, Garrett, and Kheel). It was and remains our collective judgment that the skills and abilities of the local mediation group was fully competent to cope with all aspects and issues that would be present.

In view of the change in city administration that occurred with the election of Mayor Lindsay, I considered it proper and in keeping with my responsibilities to ascertain if there was to be a change in policy and viewpoint in this situation by the new mayor.

For this reason, on December 15, prior to Mayor-elect Lindsay's assumption of responsibility and in company with two other FMCS officers, I visited with Mr. Lindsay to more definitely determine what role, if any, the Federal service should play in the forthcoming negotiations.

« PreviousContinue »