STATEMENT OF H. E. GILBERT, PRESIDENT BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN & ENGINEMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 18, 1966 I would like to begin today by reading a quotation from an advertisement published in every newspaper in the Nation by the Association of American Railroads. I assume the ad is an expression of Mr. J. E. Wolfe, chief negotiator for the railroads, because the subject is the National Joint Board, created to study rail operations with and without firemen and in which Mr. Wolfe was so largely involved. This is the quotation: "This official report stands as a beacon of truth illuminating results of a vital indistry's historic efforts to modernize operations and work practices with the maximum of benefits to employes of the public." Such a self-serving statement is an insult to the intelligence of Congress, the press, and the public, and, that is a mild commentary on my part. This so-called official report which is called a beacon of truth is the result of secret management surveys, secret management studies-all of which were management-controlled— topped off by a management-written report. You gentlemen, the Congress and the public have been asked to accept the brash, arrogant methods of railroad management as the basis for developing an unbiased study of rail operations with and without rail firemen. I don't believe you are that gullible, nor is the public. For any who might still consider the report of the National Joint Board a "majority" report, because one of the union representatives signed it, understand that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers represents less than 5 percent of rail firemen on all railroads. Also, the BLE leadership has made it crystal clear there is more to gain for the BLE by joining with management rather than staying in the thick of the fight for jobs. I cannot think of a more revealing commentary on the activity of Mr. Charles Coughlin, first assistant grand chief of the BLE, and a member of the National Joint Board, than the coverage given his antifireman actions in his own BLE publication. On January 7, 1966, the BLE membership was told that Coughlin had submitted a separate report to the National Joint Board. His report was reprinted, and its contents must have shocked every trade unionist and every practical railroad man holding membership in that organization. Because, in the next issue, dated last Friday, not a word was carried about the National Joint Board. BLE members have not been told that Coughlin signed the carrier-written report, that he seconded the motion to have it adopted, and that his own report is now part of the carrier's document. The internal heat must be too much for Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Perry Heath, the grand chief. Of great significance is the fact that no surveys have been published by the BLE officer. All anyone has seen is Coughlin's assessment which apparently is based on less than 100 answers to a survey that he told the Senate Commerce Committee about last August. The railroads, with the help of the BLE officer, made the National Joint Board a propaganda vehicle and nothing more. No joint studies, no joint surveys, no exchange of information was made. Even the BLE officer never saw the basic surveys and studies which the railroads claim they made. No one to my knowlege has ever seen the Coughlin survey, if it even exists. I am disturbed that the Association of American Railroads spent from $75,000 to $100,000 on misinforming the public about the National Joint Board in its nationwide ad. The brotherhood today published one ad in one newspaper as a token answer to the propaganda barrage of the AAR. We attempt to point out that had a study been made jointly, the public and Congress would know the answer to the safety and efficiency questions as well as what engineers are saying about the need for firemen. The gross misuse and misdirection of the national joint board has led me to two conclusions, which is why I am here talking to you today. First, the railroads are clearly afraid that a real, penetrating study of their operations would have produced the direct opposite result of the study they now pass off as a "beacon of truth," and that they subverted a rail union in order to prevent any meaningful review of operations with and without firemen. This leads me to my second conclusion, which is that the railroads, under the dictation of Mr. J. E. Wolfe, are not willing to meet this issue in collective bargaining. Wolfe is the architect of "crisis and compulsion" in railroad labor relations and he is firmly in command. The public relations posture as seen in the recent ad indicates that Wolfe is set to go the route of another national emergency. The brotherhood is not going to sit back and wait for the railroads to set off a nationwide strike. Frankly, we believe that the fireman dispute can be settled expeditiously and peacefully once collective bargaining is undertaken in good faith. The Senate Committee on Commerce recognized this when it passed a resolution last October 12, urging the parties to undertake collective bargaining, and asking the Secretary of Labor and National Mediation Board to help the process. On November 15, 1965, the brotherhood served three notices to initiate the bargaining process. These notices were served by B.L.F. & E. general chairmen on individual railroad managements and asked for restoration of jobs, reemployment of firemen who had been separated, and the establishment of a training program for new firemen coming into the industry. Conferences were held on the railroads within 30 days, as required by the Railway Labor Act. A number of the reports I received were quite interesting, but no settlement was reached during any of the initial conferences. To continue the bargaining process, I have asked the National Mediation Board to assign mediators to assist our representatives on six railroads in an effort to settle the three separate B.L.F. & E. contract notices. This was done January 13, 1966, and the railroads involved are the Chesapeake & Ohio-Baltimore & Ohio, Norfolk & Western, Atlantic Coast Line, Louisville & Nashville, Santa Fe, and Southern Pacific (Pacific Lines). On January 14 I personally wrote to the presidents of each of these railroads urging that collective bargaining be permitted to settle the fireman issue on their railroads and that they disassociate themselves from the crisis and compulsion philosophy of Mr. Wolfe. Further, I advised them that the brotherhood, in 1962, had recognized that certain jobs require firemen more critically than do others, and I told them that in my opinion this is still the key to a lasting settlement of this issue. Once we abandon public relations postures and get down to hardnosed collective bargaining this issue will be behind us. We will then see not only an end to a long and bitter fight, but also a new and more meaningful working relationship between railroad management and railroad labor organizations. I want to emphasize for you here today that there is no need for any service disruption on any of these railroads. Our move is designed to get the bargaining process moving, not to single out any group for crisis pressure. If we are greeted in the same good faith on the part of these railroad managements that we sincerely present in our effort to bargain on this issue, then there is no question in my mind that we can work out a peaceful and lasting settlement of the firemen's dispute. On the other hand, I think Congress and the Nation should realize now, that, if Wolfe prevents meaningful collective bargaining, and forces a national crisis, as he did in 1963, then the brotherhood is not unwilling or unable to react in kind. I hope we have all learned the lesson that compulsory arbitration does not settle anything but only disposes of the tissue emporarily. The B.L.F. & E. wants and will work diligently for a peaceful and lasting settlement. Thank you. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY Co., Mr. H. E. Gilbert, DEAR MR. GILBERT: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 14 with regard to the handling of the three separate section 6 notices served by your duly authorized general chairmen representing your craft on the various parts of the Norfork & Western Railway Co. on or about November 15, 1965, dealing with the manning of diesel locomotives. This entire subject matter has been handled as an industry matter, and it will continue to be handled on that basis. The Norfolk & Western Railway Co. will continue to have this matter handled through its respective carriers' conference committees in conjunction with the National Railway Labor Conference. Yours very truly, HERMAN H. PEVLER. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Mr. H. E. GILBERT, President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, AFL-CIO, DEAR MR. GILBERT: You will recall that on October 12, 1965, the Senate Committee on Commerce adopted a committee resolution to "further provide for the settlement of the labor dispute between certain carriers by railroad and certain employees." Among other things, the resolution requested that the Secretary of Labor and the National Mediation Board make their offices available to the parties to the extent needed to aid the parties in reaching agreement. Recently the joint board provided by arbitration award No. 282 issued its report (and dissenting opinion) and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen filed certain notices with respect to the employment of firemen (helpers). In view of these circumstances, it seem appropriate that I and the chairman of the National Mediation Board meet with you to discuss this matter. I have asked Assistant Secretary Reynolds to contact you direct for the purpose of establishing an acceptable date and time. I have sent similar letters to Mr. Wolfe of the National Railway Labor Conference and to Mr. Heath of the BLE suggesting that they also meet with us at times convenient to them. Sincerely, W. WILLARD WIRTZ, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, Hon. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, DEAR SIR: This will serve to acknowledge your letter of January 20, 1966, having reference to the Senate Committee on Commerce resolution dated October 12, 1965. Prudence dictates that I advise you that I do not recognize the so-called joint board report referred to in the second paragraph of your communication as meeting in any respect the objectives contemplated by the provision of the Award of Arbitration Board No. 282 when the joint board was established. I must also add that there was no "dissenting opinion" filed. Notwithstanding what is said in the preceding paragraph, I share your views about the propriety of the meeting suggested in order that all concerned may implement the desires of the resolution passed by the Senate Committee on Com merce. It is my understanding that Assistant Secretary Reynolds will contact me for the purpose of establishing a mutually acceptable time and date for the meeting, and I shall await further word from him. Very truly yours, H. E. GILBERT, President. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, Mr. H. H. PEVLER, President, Norfolk & Western Railway, DEAR MR. PEVLER: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 20, 1966, in response to my communication of January 14, 1966, concerning three separate section 6 notices served on your railroad by B.L.F. & E. general chairmen under date of November 15, 1965. In my letter, I gave expression to my conviction that these disputes could be settled by individual railroad managements in conference with B.L.F. & E. representatives, providing there is an equal desire of the parties respectively for a collectively bargained settlement, and a disassociation from the crisis and compulsion philosophy that has permeated this dispute from its inception. The separate notices of the B.L.F. & E. were served on each of the railroads, yours among others. These notices are not in national handling. There is an obligation imposed by law on your railroad to individually and separately negotiate with the B.L.F. & E. in an attempt to arrive at an agreement. Your railroad cannot escape that obligation by characterizing the problems as being industrywide in order to avoid its individual responsibility. In an endeavor to reach an amicable settlement on your railroad, the B.L.F. & E. has invoked the services of the National Mediation Board in respect to its notices, pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The public interest, as well as the best interests of the Norfolk & Western Railway and its employees, demand that this issue be met and that we work toward a peaceful and lasting settlement. With kindest personal regards, I am H. E. GILBERT, President. NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO., Mr. H. C. LUCAS, General Chairman, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, DEAR SIR: This has reference to our previous correspondence concerning your combination proposal of November 15, 1965, purportedly served pursuant to section 6 of the Railway Labor Act relating to the employment of firemen-helpers, and other issues, identified by you as notices 1, 2, and 3. I informed you in my letter of November 17, 1965, that: "Without waiving the carrier's position as to the prematurity, unlawfulness and nonbargainability of your requests, the carrier reserves the right to file such proposals as it may consider appropriate for concurrent handling with your requests if or when it should be subsequently determined either prior or subsequent to March 31, 1966, that any part of requests may properly be progressed." As you know, no determination has as yet been made that your requests or any part thereof may properly be progressed. While it has been and is our position that the service and progression of any notice concerning the subject matter of the Award of the Arbitration Board is premature and void if filed prior to March 31, 1966, we are prepared to begin preliminary discussions on your proposal of November 15, 1965, without waiving any of our objections thereto. However, if such discussions are to begin as you insist, they must, to be meaningful, cover both your proposed requests and those which we propose on the same subject matter to be handled concurrently. Therefore, we hereby give notice that we propose at the appropriate time to revise and supplement the agreement rules, practices and procedures now in effect in accordance with the proposal set forth in attachment A, appended hereto, such proposal to be considered and progressed concurrently with your proposal of November 15, 1966. It is suggested that the initial discussions on the carrier's proposal be held at Roanoke, Va., February 8, 1966, at 10 a.m., at which time we will also discuss the organization's proposals. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and advise if the proposed time, date, and place for holding the preliminary discussions are agreeable to you. Service of the aforesaid notice is not to be considered as a waiver of any objection raised to your November 15, 1965, proposal as fully described in our letter of November 17, 1965. In that respect it definitely remains our position that your combination proposal of November 15, 1965, is premature, unlawful and nonbargainable and we hereby reserve the right to seasonably assert that position when appropriate. In the event that we are unable to reach an agreement upon the organization's and carrier's proposals at the discussions, we further propose that the matter be handled on a joint national basis. In accordance with established procedure which has been followed in the railroad industry on numerous occasions during the last 50 years, if an agreement is not reached in our discussions, this carrier will join with other carriers serving a like notice upon their employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen in the creation of regional carriers' conference committees which, in conjunction with the National Railway Labor Conference, will be authorized to represent it in progressing the matter to a conclusion. It is requested that you join with representatives of the employees on other carriers who are receiving like proposals in the creation of an employees' national conference committee to handle to a conclusion the subject matter of these proposals. Yours very truly, H. C. WYATT, Senior Vice President. [Attachment A] A. Eliminate part B, section II, of the terms prescribed by the award of Arbitration Board No. 282. B. Establish a rule to provide that 1. Management shall have the unrestricted right, under all circumstances, to determine when and if a fireman (helper) shall be used on other than steam power in all classes of freight service (including all mixed, miscellaneous, and unclassified services) and in all classes of yard service (including all transfer, belt line, and miscellaneous services to which mileage rates to not apply). 2. All agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations, and practices, however established, which conflict with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this rule shall be eliminated. C. The adoption of paragraphs A and B above shall not affect the application of the terms of parts C and D of section II of the award by Arbitration Board No. 282 except insofar as may be necessary to reflect the elimination of part B of section II and the adoption of the rule set forth in paragraph B.1. above. Mr. H. E. GILBERT, NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO., Roanoke, Va., February 9, 1966. President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, DEAR MR. GILBERT: Referring to exchange of correspondence ending with your letter of January 31 in regard to section 6 notices served by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen upon this railroad and practically all railroads of the Nation, in regard to the issue involving the elimination of firemanhelpers in freight and yard service. The issue described in the foregoing paragraph originated on November 2, 1959, with the serving of a section 6 notice on a national basis by the carriers of this industry. By agreement, it was handled as a national issue before a Presidential Commission; as a national issue before emergency board No. 154; as a national issue when Public Law 88-108 was enacted by Congress and as a national issue before arbitration board No. 282. Your section 6 notices, served on or about November 15, 1965, were served on all of the railroads of the industry, which most certainly indicates that the issue involved is still of national proportions. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for singling out any railroad or any group of railroads for initial handling of the dispute, with the certain knowledge that all railroads are in exactly the same situation and it is inevitable that a solution of the problem must be on a national basis. In consideration of the history of this dispute leading up to its present posture, we must continue to handle it on a national basis and, as I have previously indicated to you, this railroad has given its power of attorney to the National Railway Labor Conference and the eastern, western, and southeastern carriers' conference committees. Yours very truly, HERMAN H. PEVLER, President. FEBRUARY 9, 1966. THOMAS A. TRACY, Executive Secretary, National Mediation Board, On or about January 13, 1966, the services of the National Mediation Board were requested on B.L.F. & E. notices dated November 15, 1965, on the following railroads or portions thereof: Chesapeake & Ohio-Baltimore & Ohio, Norfolk & Western, Louisville & Nashville, Atlantic Coast Line, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, Southern Pacific (Pacific lines). Those notices were served in conformity with section 6 of the Railway Labor Act to initiate negotiations concerning the use of firemen-helpers in road freight and yard service and to give fulfillment to |