the organization, but the individual members, from doing anything to protect themselves against any application of the award that the carriers might impose upon them. So, armed with the award and the injunction from Judge Holtzoff, they immediately started in to denigrate the ranks of firemen through every device they could bring into play, knowing our only recourse against such onslaught was an appeal to the Arbitration Board for the rendition of an answer to a question as to whether they were doing it right. And even after we have been successful in getting answers to some of these questions, we have had to go back to Judge Holtzoff's court to get the answers enforced.

So we have been something in the nature of a dog chasing his tail, trying to protect the interests of the men looking to our organization for protection under these most extraordinary circumstances imposed upon us as an organization by these facts I have just related. In that course they have eliminated this number of jobs that I have just stated.

Senator McGEE. I think that aside now from all of the issues present in the case that we are hearing this morning, if we were to just set those aside for a moment, I think this fairly describes the impression of more than a few members of this committee, and certainly describes my recollection that we were firmly assured that the reductions would not be drastic, that this was going to be a gradual moving out of jobs, largely through attrition, once the original reduction was made. And the willingness of the Congress at that time to urge the enactment of that legislation, to try to resolve this situation, hinged in substantial measure on that understanding. It would be difficult to predict what the Congress might have otherwise been willing to take a chance on had they been told forthrightly that they were going to destroy 16,000 jobs, 20,000 jobs, as it now apparently is going to be doing by the first of April. It may have created an entirely different state of congressional mind.

But I do think the record is replete with evidence of the congressional expectations on that front. And that is quite aside now from any of the substantive materials in terms of the issues and the interpretation of those issues. I think the record ought to be clear on that.

Mr. GILBERT. I think those views, too, are shared, Senator McGee. by others who had some participation in it, which I will relate subsequently in my statement here, representatives of governmental bodies, as well as the Chairman of the Arbitration Board. And I will get into that in a moment.

They shared-the same views as you have expressed were shared by the Members of Congress who enacted the legislation.

Senator MCGEE. Well, some of us recall-I happen to be involved in at least some of the stages of the negotiations-that we had misgivings about the implications for compulsory arbitration, for example, in the proposal pending before the Congress. And we were very careful in trying to avoid setting unneeded precedents along that line.

And while we were willing to face up to some hard facts of modern developments and the like, we were very much concerned about the need and about living with the experience of this gradual reduction in order to get a firmer reading on it. And here is one Senator, and I have a lot of colleagues and allies, who believes that our expectations.

that conditioned our willingness to take a chance on this approach was that the reduction would be much less than this. There seems to be some difference in the attitude toward which the preservation or destruction of the jobs was approached, rather than on any pat formula that might otherwise have regulated it.

Now, why don't you proceed?

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions. Mr. Gilbert, did all of these 34,000 men belong to B.L.F. & E.? Mr. GILBERT. No, sir; they did not, Senator.

Senator BARTLETT. About how many?

Mr. GILBERT. As near as we can estimate of those involved, I would say approximately 60 percent, between 60 and 70 percent of them did. Senator BARTLETT. How many dues-paying members will you bave after March 31?

Mr. GILBERT. Well, I hope I have as many as I have now at least, or more. We have now, full dues payers, approximately 38,000. Senator BARTLETT. In addition to the firemen helpers, you have what classes of workmen within the industry?

Mr. GILBERT. Well, we have in our membership engineers, firemen helpers, hostlers, and hostler helpers. The figure I mentioned includes that entire group, Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

Mr. GILBERT. When Mr. Jess L. Shattuck, vice president of the B.L.F. & E. appeared before this committee on August 2, 1965, he told this committee (and now I am referring to p. 155 and following of the transcript for August 2) that as early as March 19, 1963, the B.L.F. & E. had offered to agree to the blanking of up to 5,500 jobs subject to the provisions of the agreement then under discussion. The categories of jobs subject to elimination were believed by us sufficient to eventually result in the elimination of 5,500 firemen. The railroads took issue, not in principle but on the ground of a belief on their part that the specified categories would not yield 5,500 job eliminations. Then Mr. Shattuck said that

During the whole course of our negotiations with the carriers from beginning to end it was his understanding that the figure of 5,500 was acceptable to the railroads. Whatever objections the railroads had came apparently from doubt that the proposed procedure for eliminating jobs would produce that figure.

We were

Now I am coming to the meat of the whole matter. finally told by the Secretary of Labor that if we could assure the railroads that what we proposed would result in a blanking of 5,500 jobs it was a "very meaningful figure" and in his opinion would lead the way to an agreement. We therefore concluded that the 5,500 job figure was acceptable to the railroads.

When Assistant Secretary of Labor James J. Reynolds appeared before this committee on September 16 he discussed this question starting at page 982 of the transcript. He corroborated Mr. Shattuck's statement in almost every detail. For example, at page 983, Mr. Reynolds said:

For instance, the labor organizations on more than one occasion, indeed going back to March of that year (1963) had expressed a willingness to recognize this problem to the extent of agreeing to removal of up to some 5,500 firemen from diesel units in this country.

At page 986, Mr. Reynolds said:

Certainly the carriers had indicated interest-let me put it that way-on many occasions in any meaningful arrangement which would result in the removal of some 5,500 jobs over a reasonable period of time. *** What was a reasonable period of time men would differ on. A carrier might think it would be 2 years. The organizations might think it would be 5 years.

At page 988, Senator Cannon asked whether one part of the tentative agreements was this issue of approximately 5,500 people that would be subject to attrition over a period of time. Mr. Reynolds responded (p. 988):

Yes. That was certainly one of the items on which the Secretary felt there had been something close to an agreement.

Now in light of this background, within the 2-year period there are not 5,500 jobs abolished but approximately 20,000, nearly 4 times the anticipated number.

The number of firemen eliminated has exceeded the expectations of officials of Government, the parties to the dispute, and the members of the Arbitration Board.

Senator MCGEE. And Members of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir. Mr. Ralph Seward, the Chairman of the Arbitration Board, testified to this committee that the Board estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000 firemen would be involved. Instead, taking the figures of the railroads, several times that number have been eliminated. I wish to call your attention to Mr. Seward's answers to Senator Cannon found at page 363 of the printed report of hearings, which I read to you only in part.

Senator CANNON. You have already said that according to your computations, made it such that 90 percent could be eliminated, except there would not be time during the 2-year period, and one further proviso, of course, and that is because of the job protection which you wrote in, so therefore this would reduce the 90 percent somewhat?

Mr. SEWARD. Yes.

Senator CANNON. Did you make an estimate as to the number of firemen that you thought would be involved?

We had guesses.

Mr. SEWARD. We made no official estimate.
Senator CANNON. What was your guesstimate then?

Mr. SEWARD. We were guessing in the neighborhood of 5,000 or 6,000. Well, in the neighborhood of 6,000, in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. What? You said they would retain 5,000 or 6,000?
Mr. SEWARD. No, that 5,000 or 6,000 would be eliminated.

Senator CANNON. Five or six thousand would be eliminated. Now, I think the record shows that about 17,000 have been eliminated already, and another 6,000 might be eliminated before the expiration of the award.

Mr. Wolfe, in a speech delivered in San Francisco, January 21, 1966, claimed that of the 18,000 jobs eliminated, more than 9,000 eliminations were due to natural attrition-"retirement, deaths, resignations, and promotion of firemen to engineer." This latter figure by itself is so incredibly high as to be unbelievable. The attachment of employees to the railroad industry is a well known fact. Assistant Secretary Reynolds commented upon it in his statement on page 976 when he called attention to the "deep desire" of firemen to "remain in occupations within the railroad industry." Ordinarily the rate of turnover is slow. Men take pride in their work and hold their seniority in order to gradually move into more desirable and better payment positions. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to suppose that there would have been a natural attrition rate in excess of 25 percent of the total labor force of firemen? An attrition rate in excess of

25 percent cannot be natural attrition. This was a forced attrition rate, forced by the devices we discussed in our initial presentation.

INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THE ARBITRATION BOARD'S ANSWER TO
B.L.F. & E.'S QUESTION 13

At this time I would like to set the record straight regarding the answer of Arbitration Board 282 to B.L.F. & E. question 13. B.L.F. & E. questions 13, 16, 19, and 50 and carrier question 4 under section II, part C(2) of the award all dealt with various phases of a single problem. Under the award, as the committee knows, the length of time a fireman had been with a carrier-less than 2 years, 2-10 years, or more than 10 years-was most important with respect to his rights under the award. Also important was the question whether his average earnings in the 2 years preceding the effective date of the award were at least $200 per month.

Senator MCGEE. Let me interrupt there again, Mr. Gilbert. This is of course a question of seniority rights and its implications in terms of the firemen's willingness to hold on to a job or to shift elsewhere to take a comparable position.

Now I discussed the loss of seniority rights by C-7 men. I remember discussing that with Mr. Patterson of the Pennsylvania Railroad and also Mr. Farr of the Union Pacific Railroad, and in the hearings I placed in the record an example of the effect on C-7 men's seniority of the loss of jobs.

I wonder whether you consider it appropriate to tie that in here, unless you discuss it later on.

Mr. GILBERT. Well, this discussion I am entering into now is to straighten the record out because the carriers on every occasion when they appeared here, they give me credit or blame me for the answer to this question. And I think for the record of all concerned that I must clear the record in order that they may know that what was being posed for foisting upon us by the answer to this question prepared by the neutrals, was so obnoxious that no one could live with it. And as a lesser of two evils, I was forced to do what I did.

Senator MCGEE. Why don't you go on and I will suspend that for a moment.

Mr. GILBERT. I doubt whether this would be the appropriate place. to discuss that.

Senator MCGEE. All right.

Mr. GILBERT. Immediately after the award went into effect, the question arose: What length of service was to be attributed to an employee part of whose service was in one seniority district and the remainder of whose service prior to the effective date of the award was in another seniority district? Would he be allowed to lump together all of the time that he had worked for the carrier regardless of seniority districts? Would he be allowed to count his earnings in both seniority districts for purposes of meeting the $200 per month qualifying amount? The whole problem is summed up most simply in B.L.F. & E. question 50, which reads as follows:

Can a fireman (helper) who holds seniority on more than one district count both service and earnings from such seniority districts for the purposes of this award? The Board's answer reads as follows:

(1) If a fireman (helper) with seniority in more than one seniority district was working on the effective date of the award, his status will depend upon bi seniority 61-927-66-pt. 2- -3

and earnings during the 2 years prior to the effective date of the award in the seniority district in which he was working on the effective date of the award (2) If a fireman (helper) with seniority in more than one seniority district was on furlough on the effective date of the award, his status will depend upon his seniority and earnings during the 2 years prior to the effective date of the award in that seniority district in which his earnings were the greatest in such 2-year period.

Senator MCGEE. I wonder if you would suspend this for just a moment, Mr. Gilbert, and let me check on the committee meeting in the next room. We will just temporarily recess this and let me see what adjustment we can make here. We are going to have to make two adjustments. One is at this particular moment, and the other will be because of the vote that will be scheduled for around 2 o'clock on the floor and we want to make sure we can continue in an orderly way here without serious interruption.

So just hold your horses 1 second. Hold your locomotive 1 second, I should say.

(Recess.)

Senator BARTLETT (presiding). The committee will be in order. All right, if you care to proceed, Mr. Gilbert.

Mr. GILBERT. Thank you, Senator.

At every opportunity carrier witnesses told this committee that the B.L.F. & E. cannot complain about the answer to question 13 and the related questions because I wrote the Board's answer to these questions. Let me explain to you the history of these interpretations.

As the committee knows, I am one of the union members on Arbitration Board 282. When the question first came before us it was my position that for purposes of the award, earnings with the carrier. no matter where earned and service, no matter in what seniority district, performed should count for purposes of the award. What we were measuring basically was the extent of a man's attachment to the industry and particularly the extent of his attachment to a particular carrier. In my opinion, if the helper had put in more than 10 years as a fireman with a carrier, whether on one seniority district or five seniority districts he should be a C-7 man for purposes of the award. Similarly if he had earned an average of at least $200 per month in the 24 months preceding the effective date of the award, he should qualify under the earnings test whether it was earned on one seniority district or on five seniority districts.

From the point of view of the men, however, there were certain complicating factors which had to be borne in mind. Let's suppose that an employee had 12 years' seniority in his home district. Suppose also that work had slacked off, and that he had accepted a temporary transfer to another district. Let us say he had 1 year of service on the effective date of the award in the temporary assignment. This man therefore would have 13 years altogether with the carrier. Certainly for purposes of the arbitration award that fireman should be a C-7 man. In fairness, however, to the men in the seniority district where he was working on the effective date of the award, he should not be considered to have 13 years' seniority in that district, but he should be considered to have only 1 year's seniority.

If we consider him as having 13 years' seniority in the district where he happened to be working on the effective date of the award, the men in that seniority district would be gravely prejudiced because