« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Board, and no impartial Chairman, it was essential that there be an equal division of Board members so that neither side could have a dominant voice on the Board. Certainly the Arbitration Board had no reason to anticipate that the two organizations would not work together. Throughout the entire lengthy controversy from its inception in November 1960 the two organizations had worked together in harmony. Scarcely had the award been issued, however, when the unity ceased to exist. Not, may I say, because of any action of the B.L.F. & E.
Senator MCGEE. Are you suggesting to the committee that there ! was possible collusion between the railroad and the representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotives? Is that what you are saying in this paragraph at the bottom of page 8?
Mr. GILBERT. I have a strong suspicion on that, that it is more than a feeling, Senator McGee.
Senator MCGEE. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is a labor organization group?
Mr. GILBERT. We used to put it in that category.
Senator MCGEE. I wanted to make sure that I got the tone there correctly, that seemed like strong language.
Mr. GILBERT. It is not without some foundation.
Senator PEARSON. I am not sure I understand yet. Do you, or do you not, feel there was collusion between this particular union and
Mr. GILBERT. I do feel there was. I surely do, with all of the feeling at my command, I might add.
Senator PEARSON. Are you going to elaborate further on that in your testimony today?
Mr. GILBERT. I think some of the things I will put in here, and I have some evidence that I believe will support our contention. I am not one who grasps in the air for statements without foundation.
Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. May I ask you, Mr. Gilbert, if there was any cooperation between B.L.F. & E. and BLE at the start of the meeting?
Mr. GILBERT. You mean at the start of the meetings of the Joint Board, Senator?
Senator BARTLETT. Yes.
Mr. GILBERT. No; unfortunately not. I think there has been some question raised as to whether I have a strong feeling about whether there was collusion or not. I think that the committee is entitled to know some of the bases on which I make this statement, and I read to you now from a circular letter identified as No. 25-3. It is dated July 21, 1964. It is signed, "Yours truly, J. E. Wolfe, E. H. Hallmann, W. S. MacGill, and J. W. Orem," all recognized as members of the National Labor Conference, representing their respective committees.
And in particular, I want to read one paragraph. This is a report, as I understand the entire letter, to member roads, and I want this date to be remembered, July 21, 1964. This is the entire paragraph:
Paragraph 2 of article 2 provides for a further increase of $1.50 per day to engineers in all classes of road freight and yard service when the engine crew consists of only a locomotive engineer. This special increase applies both to basic daily rates and mileage rates.
The article 2, paragraph 2, refers to the national agreement negotiated-I think I use that term lightly-the agreement signed by the carrier representatives and the BLE. I continue now to quote:
It does not apply in passenger service and therefore will not affect rates paid locomotive engineers in multiple-unit electric car service. By letter of understanding with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, it has been agreed that this special increase also will not apply to engineers operating without firemen on locomotives weighing 90,000 pounds or less on drivers, pursuant to the definition of locomotives contained in section 4 of the Firemen's Diesel Agreement of May 17, 1950. With the consummation of the agreement, we believe that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers will support our efforts to secure relief from State excess crew laws and the other objectives of the award of Arbitration Board 282 dealing with the manpower issue.
Senator MCGEE. May I say here that I don't know anything about the particular group that you are making reference to in detail, but I had a great deal of correspondence from their members in the last few weeks protesting their leadership's position on the Hours of Service Act that is pending. So at least they must be in a state of ferment, a great change taking place in the ranks. Maybe that is healthy, but the ranks are protesting to me at least on the leadership's position on another piece of railroad legislation.
Mr. GILBERT. Senator, we who consider ourselves trade unionists can understand that kind of ferment in a group of trade unions.
Senator CANNON. Does that relate your reference to the agreement-does that relate to the matter that was presented to the committee before, where it was indicated that the BLE elected to take an increase in pay, to work without firemen rather than keep the firemen on? This issue was discussed at our previous hearings, as I recall. Mr. GILBERT. Well, this is the same agreement referred to in here that was consummated at that time, Senator.
Senator CANNON. That is the same one we are talking about now? Mr. GILBERT. This is the same one referred to in this communication; yes.
Senator CANNON. Thank you.
Mr. GILBERT. The parties did act promptly in March 1964 to designate their representatives. From then on, however, until it suited the carriers to behave otherwise, the carriers dragged their feet. It was impossible to get the carriers to name a date, even for the first meeting of the Board. My efforts, during 1964 and until fall 1965, to activate this Board, are set out in detail in the report of Mr. Shattuck and need not be repeated here (see particularly pp. 7-10).
Within a few days after Mr. Wolfe appeared before this committee on September 21-23, 1965, he and Mr. Hallmann by telegram requested that the Board begin its meetings on October 12. Because of prior commitments, Mr. Shattuck was unable to attend a meeting on that date and suggested another date. An exchange of telegrams ensued. Significantly, the carriers moved immediately to churn up a sandstorm of technicalities which obscured and hindered the Joint Board in its important work. Let me give you one example: When I requested by wire certain information from Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Wolfe refused to make the material available to me on the ground that I was "not a member of the National Joint Board and this material is for the exclusive use of members of the Board." This was a ridiculous position and Mr. Wolfe knew that it was a ridiculous position. The information to be developed by the Joint Board was for the benefit of the
parties in the railroad industry, the employees of the Nation's carriers and for the public at large and Mr. Wolfe knew it. It was not for Mr. Shattuck's personal benefit or my personal benefit.
Senator CANNON. Was this information ever furnished to Mr. Shattuck? He was a member of the Board?
Mr. GILBERT. No, it never was. When he went to the meeting of the Board, when he was available to go, they refused to give it to him then, although they had given evidence that they had material on hand for study.
Senator CANNON. So, actually, it was refused to you, because you weren't a member of the board, and yet Shattuck, who represented you people on the board, was not permitted to have access to the information?
Mr. GILBERT. That is correct, Senator. In the absence of Mr. Shattuck on October 12 the carriers and the BLE met and agreed upon a six-item agenda. Only items 1 and 2 were within the proper scope of the activities of the joint board. They were: (1) "Undue work burden devolving upon the remaining employees," and (2) "Safety of operations with and without firemen." The four other items on the agenda had no business there whatever. They included: (A) a BLE contention that it should have the right to exercise the 10-percent veto provided by the award; (B) a BLE demand for an apprenticetraining program for engineers; (C) hardships inflicted upon employees as a result of the application of award 282; and (D) any other subject which "may be of interest."
Mr. Shattuck was able to attend the board's session for the first time on November 2, 1965, bringing with him Mr. W. T. Byrne, research and education director of the B.L.F. & E. The other members of the Joint Board immediately objected to Mr. Byrne presence, and in order to avoid a breakup of the meeting, Mr. Byrne retired from the meeting.
Senator MCGEE. Why was Mr. Byrne seeking to be present, may I ask?
Mr. GILBERT. He was the director of our research and education Bureau, and we thought he could be helpful to our vice president in matters relating to the functions-
Senator MCGEE. He was there because of his fund of information, his expertise?
Mr. GILBERT. That is right.
Mr. McGEE. He was not seeking to participate on the board, but was there merely as a consultant and adviser to Mr. Shattuck? Mr. GILBERT. That is right.
Senator BARTLETT. As far as your knowledge goes, were there any other outsiders at the meeting?
Mr. GILBERT. Not to my knowledge. At this meeting Mr. Shattuck requested he be supplied with copies of whatever material had been exchanged between the carrier and the BLE. The carriers found excuses for refusing to do so, and BLE Representative Coughlin stated flatly that his organization would not exchange any material with the BL.F. & E.
At the next session on November 12, Mr. Shattuck again called upon the members of the board to exchange all materials developed by them individually. In addition, Mr. Shattuck suggested a plan of organization and operation for the board designed to insure
a proper and complete study. This proposal was summarily rejected by the other three members of the board. In the end the board concluded its work without the carriers or the BLE submitting a single line of data to the B.L.F. & E.
Senator MCGEE. You make that sound like an inner club. Is there any technical reason that you can see why this information should have been withheld from the B.L.F. & E.?
Mr. GILBERT. Not if, indeed, they had any.
Senator MCGEE. Are you suggesting that maybe they didn't have anything to submit in the first place?
Mr. GILBERT. Well, the experience dictates that there may be some truth in that assumption, because we were not unwilling to furnish what material we had; we are sure of that. And the fact that people who are working with you on a board refuse to show you the things they confess they have raised some serious doubt about, whether they have it.
Senator MCGEE. Did your representative at any time attempt to get this kind of information from at least the other labor member on the board? Separately, rather than from the board as an institution? Mr. GILBERT. I will ask Mr. Shattuck to answer that from his personal experience.
Mr. SHATTUCK. Senator McGee, all of my endeavors to attempt to secure the information from the other labor member of the board was wholly within the activities of the national joint board and was not outside of the national joint board. I might say this: My first approach in the National Joint Board was a feeling that the parties should attempt to agree upon the type of material that we should obtain, agree upon a type of evaluation, and then submit our findings based upon that type of study and evaluation to the parties. That was my concept of our approach to the board. But to answer your question, no, Senator.
Senator LAUSCHE. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator LAUSCHE. Was the material which they allegedly had, ever revealed to the meeting of the Joint Board?
Mr. SHATTUCK. No, sir, Senator Lausche, at no time during the joint board activities, the meetings I attended, did we review one accident, did we try and ascertain the cause of one accident, did we look at the efficiency of operations, and attempt to ascertain whether it had improved or deteriorated. At no time was the first one of those types of studies discussed among the Board.
Senator LAUSCHE. Well, my inquiry is directed particularly at the charge that they had material that belonged to the board and refused to make it available to you. Was that material ever discussed generally and openly at the board meeting?
Mr. SHATTUCK. It was not.
Senator LAUSCHE. Was any paper ever submitted to the board containing that material which you believe was gathered?
Mr. SHATTUCK. There was some material exchanged between the carrier and BLE members, which I understood to be probably an evaluation made by those two parties upon the material they had. They each apparently made some type of study and from their conclusions based upon their partisan type study, they furnished the other party, the carrier furnished the BLE and the BLE furnished the carrier their particular conclusions upon that type of material.
Senator LAUSCHE. But that material was never supplied to you? Mr. SHATTUCK. That is correct, it was not.
Senator LAUSCHE. And never discussed in the meeting of the Joint Board?
Mr. SHATTUCK. That is correct.
Senator LAUSCHE. Did you submit your material to the Joint Board?
Mr. SHATTUCK. On three different meetings we had the material available. We offered to enter into a complete and free exchange of all the material we had with the carrier members, and with the BLE members, with the understanding that they would likewise transmit or exchange with us the type of material that they had in their possession. That type of exchange was refused.
Senator LAUSCHE. So the net result was that the material which you had likewise was not submitted to the joint board?
Mr. SHATTUCK. It was not, because of failure to exchange material,
Senator LAUSCHE. Thank you very much.
Senator MCGEE. To make sure the record is clear on that point now, so we can't misconstrue it, at any time did they make a similar proposal at which you failed to match their proposal and thus it didn't become a matter of formal discussion of the board?
Mr. SHATTUCK. No. At no time did either of the other parties fail to exchange the material among all three parties, Senator.
Senator MCGEE. You may proceed, Mr. Gilbert.
Mr. GILBERT. The B.L.F. & E. report commencing at page 17 reviews the reasons for the failure of the Joint Board. Let me summarize them briefly. The carrier and BLE members of the board failed to function in the spirit envisaged by Arbitration Board 282. In order for the board to prepare a meaningful study it was required that the members divest themselves of partisanship. Unfortunately, partisanship was in the driver's seat from the first moment. It delayed the initial meetings of the board, and it caused the carriers to place their chief negotiators on the board-- men who had devoted years to the struggle against the firemen.
With respect to the BLE there was an unfortunate development. For many years the B. L.F. & E. had had an excellent working relationship with the chief executive of the Bortherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Grand Chief Engineer Davidson. His death shortly after creation of the Board brought Perry Heath to the position of Grand Chief Engineer. Mr. Heath removed the BLE Joint Board member, Assistant Grand Chief Engineer Zimmerman, and replaced him by Assistant Grand Chief Engineer Coughlin There was an immediate reversal of attitudes on the part of the BLE. It ceased to cooperate with the BLF. & E. and began immediately to work closely with the carners.
The attitude of Mr. Heath and Mr. Coughlin was largely responsible for the long delay in activating the Joint Board. When the Joint Board did meet, the BL F. & E., which represents more than 95 percent of the firemen helpers) on the railroads of the country. found itself isolated and unable to secure the kind of study contemplated by Arbitration Board 282. On every issue presented for consideration the BLE member voted with the carrier members The consequence was that the board became a "meaningless charade."