It is a completely erroneous picture of the nature of railroad service to say, as Mr. Patterson does on page 1584, that the transfer of these men from Richmond, Indiana to Cincinnati, Ohio, was a normal condition of railroad employment. Naturally, railroad service involves traveling, but ordinarily if a man has a road job, he lives at the point of origin of his road job and thus travels away from and then back to his home terminal where he lives. This is a vastly different thing from taking men and assigning them on a permanent basis to a terminal 100 miles away from their homes. This imposes upon the men the burden and the expense of living away from home and takes them away from their families except on their days off when they must travel back and forth on their own time.

Again, regarding a similar transfer of men from Indianapolis to Columbus, Ohio, a distance of 200 miles, Mr. Patterson does not dispute the fact that such transfers were made as I stated on page 564. Even according to Mr. Patterson's own statement, the great bulk of the men are working far from their homes in Indianapolis.

We turn now to the question of six employees on the Panhandle district. As I stated in my initial statement starting at page 564, work on the Panhandle district is very slow because there is practically no business during the winter time when there is little shipping on Lake Erie. These men on the effective date of the award on January 25, 1964, were on an authorized leave of absence under rule 5-N-17 of the agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the B.L.F. & E. This rule provides "when reduction in force results in a fireman being cut off the extra list, he may be granted a leave of absence instead of being required to exercise seniority at some other terminal." Under paragraph C(5) of award 282, "the provisions of paragraph C(3) and C(4) of this award shall not apply to *** employees on appropriate leaves of absence *** providing, if not so situated, they could have met the minimum requirements of service or earnings." Our position was that if the men had not been on leave of absence they would have had the minimum earnings ($4,800) to qualify as C-7 men. The carrier refused to recognize this despite the fact that a seventh man who is junior in seniority to all six, earned more than $4,900. See page 565 of my statement.

Mr. Patterson is compelled to resort to some ingenious reasoning in an attempt to explain away the carrier's refusal to classify these six men as C-7 men rather than as C-3 men. Despite the fact that rule 5-N-17 specifically states that the men may be granted a "leave of absence" and despite the clear cut language of paragraph C-5 of the award of Arbitration Board 282, nevertheless, according to Mr. Patterson, the men were not in a leave of absence status. In order to accomplish this feat, he makes an artificial distinction between leave of absence and appropriate leave of absence. I must confess that this distinction is too much for me to understand.

Another so-called justification for his position advanced by Mr. Patterson is the board's answer to B.L.F. & E. question 69 (see p. 1586). Mr. Patterson attempts to put the six men on leave of absence in the same class as an employee laying off by permission of the carrier. A layoff as the term is used in question 69 usually is not over a day or two at a time. It is granted where there is work available for the employee, but the employee for personal reasons chooses not to work.

At page 1594, Mr. Patterson makes the point that none of the six men were actually separated. True. They are retained as C(3) firemen. Note, however, that this entitles them only to such work as may be available in order to fill "must" jobs.

We come to the case of disabled fireman, Mitchell. See page 1599 of Mr. Patterson's statement. Here is the case of a man who has a physical condition and is restricted to working as a fireman in a yard operation. His place of residence was Rose Lake, Ill., which is near East St. Louis, on the western border of Illinois. This man was removed from his assignment at Rose Lake on May 10, 1964, and was not restored to service at Rose Lake until January 17, 1965. In the interim, the carrier claims that it offered him employment in Indiana. The nearest point would have been 150 to 200 miles from his home. Even then the fact is that at the time he was offered a supposed job in Terre Haute, Ind., his seniority did not permit him to hold a job in Terre Haute. As a "fixture fireman" Mitchell should not have been required to go to Indiana.

At page 1603, Mr. Patterson discusses B.L.F. & E. question 43. I pointed out in my original statement, starting at page 571, that C-6 and C-7 firemen who are frequently required to take low pay and undesirable positions. Mr. Patterson, at page 1603, attempts to justify this practice by the board's answer

to B.L.F. & E. question 43 which he quotes on that page. This is precisely our complaint. We believe that interpretation 43 is most unfair and unjust to the fireman. This subject has been explained in full elsewhere and will not be further discussed here.

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF TED MORGANS (THE CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF NEW JERSEY)

This is a rebuttal statement in response to the statement of Mr. J. A. Craddock, vice president and general manager of the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, which appears at page 1764 of the transcript (Sept. 27, 1965).

I am unable to understand Mr. Craddock's statement on page 1766 that he is not aware of a single instance of genuine employee hardship occasioned by the award, either on the part of those firemen retained in the service or those separated from the service. My initial statement, which appears in the transcript for August 9, 1965, at page 380 describes in detail the manner in which employees of the Jersey Central had been seriously affected by the award. Mr. Craddock states, at page 1768, that after the award went into effect the Jersey Central retained about 140 firemen including about 25 C-6 men to fill approximately 70 assignments on the railroad on which firemen are required by the award and otherwise. What Mr. Craddock should have added, but did not, is the fact that at present, of the 140 firemen retained only about 81 firemen are available to fill 70 jobs. The reduction from 140 to about 81 was due to promotions to engineer, deaths, retirements, vacation, and illness, etc. As I pointed out in my original statement, however, and as Mr. Craddock admits, the 70 jobs are not distributed uniformly throughout the entire railroad but are concentrated in the central district which includes the Jersey City area. The Pennsylvania division, which largely runs through the depressed anthracite coal area, has relatively few job openings. Likewise, there are relatively few job openings in the southern district which includes generally southern New Jersey. This situation arose long prior to the award and as early as July 1, 1953, the carrier and the brotherhood entered into an agreement to give increased work opportunities to men on the Pennsyl vania division. This they accomplished by an agreement of that date under which all men then holding seniority from that time onward began to acquire seniority over the entire railroad with the provision, however, that a man hired prior to July 1, 1953, had prior rights on his own division over any man from another division.

It was not the intention of the July 1, 1963, agreement, however, to force a man to work away from the Pennsylvania division if he did not choose to do so. On February 17, 1960, an agreement was entered into between the brotherhood and the Jersey Central the relevant portion of it read as follows:

"Referring to our discussion at meeting of February 17, 1960, concerning handling of furloughed firemen on the Pennsylvania division:

"It is hereby agreed that furloughed firemen on the Pennsylvania division will be notified by letter from the superintendent to indicate their desire within 7 days to be called for service as firemen on the central division with the understanding that in the event they desire to remain on furlough, they may do so, with the further understanding that they will not be recalled or be permitted to displace any central division firemen until they have been recalled on the Pennsylvania division."

The substance of the agreement of February 17, 1960, was that if a man was furloughed on the Pennsylvania division he could, if he wished, go to work on the central division or he could remain on furlough. If he elected to remain on furlough he could not change his decision until such time as he had been recalled to work on the Pennsylvania division.

When the award of Arbritration Board 282 became effective the carrier immediately separated a large number of C-2 and C-6 firemen on the central division. This created an acute shortage of men in that division. Because of the separation of the C-2 and C-6 men, the C-7 firemen had to cover all of the nonblankable jobs and vacancies on the central division. The Jersey Central was anxious to force men from the Pennsylvania division to work on the central division in the Jersey City area, rather than to permit them to work in the Pennsyl vania division where their homes were and where their families lived. Craddock hides the realities of all of this behind polite language at page 1772 when he says, 'Eventually, when the arbitration award became better understood, and the firemen came to realize that they could not frustrate it by refusal to work,

Mr.

we achieved an accommodation so that now the firemen are exercising their seniority and protecting their Jersey City assignments." As I related in my initial testimony, the way the firemen came to realize that they could not "frustrate" the award was by the very harsh expedient adopted by the Jersey Central of providing firemen on the Pennsylvania division little or no work. Thus, their wages dropped nearly to the vanishing point. After a very short period, the men facing drastic loss of income for their families had no choice but to leave their homes and go to work in the Jersey City area.

If the job outlook in the central division was stable then I would have encouraged the men to sell their homes and move with their families to the Jersey City area. This would have been a hard decision for many men. Because of the generally depressed area in which they live, many would have been compelled to sell their homes at a substantial loss. Their families would have been uprooted and forced to leave family and friends behind. Children would have been forced to change schools. In many cases, the men and their families would have had to leave a community where they had lifetime friendships and associations. Nevertheless, I would have recommended this step and many of the men would have taken this step if the job opportunities in the Jersey City area looked genuinely bright. Such, however, is not the case. The Jersey Central, together with other roads, is now in the process of putting into effect the "Aldine plan." Under this plan there will be a vast shift in passenger service in the Jersey City area. presently looks, the Jersey Central will lose 14 passenger runs. The Jersey City passenger yard will be abandoned and consequently three crews in the Jersey City yard will be abolished. These jobs will be abolished at a time when the Jersey Central will receive $6 to $8 million in Government and State aid. When this comes to pass there will be a drastic decline in work. If the carrier had recognized the hardships caused to employees by temporary assignment to Jersey City, I feel that some arrangement could have been worked out. The carrier should have been willing to shoulder some of the losses to the men. For example,

As it

if a man was temporarily assigned to Jersey City, the carrier should have provided temporary living expenses while away from home. The men would not have been happy to work away from home because it would mean being separated from their families for at least 5 days of the week, but in order to earn a living, they would have done so. The men are not trying to avoid work. They want to work but they also want to work under reasonable conditions. They want to have an opportunity to spend time at home with their wives and children. There was no intention to compel the carrier to hire new firemen on the central division as Mr. Craddock states at page 1773. However, on December 12, 1965, because of the scarcity of qualified engineers to protect engineer assignments the carrier was forced to rehire 10 C-6 firemen who had been severed and who had received severance pay ranging from $7,500 to $9,500.

Nor is it correct to state that the men have "lifetime" jobs. They have what they have always had-namely, their seniority-which gave them rights to bid on jobs so long as jobs were available. It is certainly wrong to say as Mr. Craddock does at page 1774 that they are "among the most uniquely advantaged employees in American industry." Certainly the actual experience as to what has happened to these firemen since the award should dispel any such illusion.

Let me give you examples of some hardships which I know of personally. Consider, for example, the case of Fireman Dale Feller. Mr. Feller is a C-6 fireman who was retained in service. He has about nine children. His home is in the vicinity of Stroudsburg, Pa., but he was compelled to work in Jersey City, 90 miles from his home. Because of the commuting distance and his wife's illness Mr. Feller was compelled to resign and to take a job elsewhere. C-7 Fireman James Clark has his home in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., but also is compelled to work in Jersey City. He has eight children. Because of a physical condition he is restricted to work as a fireman and is not permitted to work as an engineer. C-7 Fireman Louis Mueller, aged about 62, has high blood pressure. He was forced from his home in Allentown, Pa., to Jersey City. Yet when he arrived in Jersey City there was no work available for him and he was not called in 2 weeks. Mr. R. C. Gilbert (see Mr. Craddock's testimony on p. 1777), is filing a separate rebuttal. So is Mr. R. E. Bretz (see p. 1764 of Mr. Craddock's statement).

Despite the carrier protestations to the contrary the fact of the matter is that the Jersey Central is continuing the very practices which I complained about in my initial statement. For example, on September 3, 1965, Mr. J. A. Craddock, the very man who testified before the committee on September 23, informed me by letter that on September 3, 1965, the Jersey Central was blanking five jobs in Allentown, Pa., two jobs at Jim Thorpe, Pa., and three jobs at Ashley, Pa.

This left only one blankable job at Allentown, one at Jim Thorpe, and one st Ashley. The men who had been assigned to these jobs were therefore forced to the extra list. The result was that the extra list was loaded down and, therefore, the men had practically no work for 8 or 9 days until the next checking period at which time the extra list was cut and the men were forced to go to Jersey City. Of course, it is true that the men, had they chosen to do so, could have gone to work at Jersey City immediately after the list had been cut on September 3. The men, however, for the reasons previously advanced did not care to go to Jersey City until they were actually forced to do so.

Let me say a few more words about question 95 which I discussed initially at transcript pages 391 to 394. I want to reiterate the fact that when the carrier first sent us its notice of March 2, 1964, it blanked all jobs by division. Not until June 1, 1964, was a second letter sent to all our local chairmen, this time blanking jobs on a systemwide basis. The origianl letter of March 2, 1964, shows clearly that the blanking was done initially on a division basis. This fact shows the fundamental error of the answer of Arbitration Board 282 to question 95. As I said in my original statement, the result of the carrier action was that men from the Pennsylvania division were forced to go to Jersey City. When men are deprived of work and of adequate paychecks and thus enter into an agreement, they are realistically forced to enter into an agreement. (Compare pp. 17831784 of Mr. Craddock's testimony.)

Finally, let me clear up a few misleading statements made about my own situation. (See p. 1788 of Mr. Craddock's testimony.) It's quite true that the job that I have at present has a home terminal at Ashley, Pa., 80 miles distance from my home at Allentown, Pa. What Mr. Craddock fails to state is that in point of fact my job starts in Scranton, Pa., 105 miles from my home at Allentown. But the job runs from Scranton to Allentown and, therefore, the so-called away from home terminal is actually my home. Because of the nature of the job, the layover time at Allentown is exactly the same as at Scranton. Thus I have the same time at home as if I lived at Scranton.

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF R. C. GILBERT (THE CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF NEW JERSEY)

This statement is in response to a statement of Mr. J. A. Craddock, vice president and general manager of the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey, which appears in the transcript of September 27, 1965, at page 1764. At page 1790 he responds to my statement, which is in the record for August 4, 1965, at page 370 Mr. Craddock, by his own statement, shows that my income declined over $1,100. According to his figures I earned over $7,700 in the 12 months before the award and only $6,600 in the 12 months following the award. In addition to this loss of actual income I have had additional heavy expenses in commuting and living away from home.

Mr. Craddock tries to make it appear as though I turned down opportunities to work. The facts are that I worked until I was furloughed in 1951 and then worked again when I was called back in the winter of 1963 or 1964. When I was furloughed in 1951 I had no rights to work on the central division out of Jersey City as men on the central division were furloughed at that time. After the agreement of July 1, 1953, was entered into, I had rights to work in the central division, men on the central division had prior rights on their own division. According to Mr. Craddock I worked regularly and "could enjoy even greater earnings" than I did. I suppose I would be allowed to work 7 days a week but with my wife and family living in White Haven, Pa., I think that I am entitled to see my family. I am sure that Mr. Craddock does not work 7 days a week and I do not see why working conditions of that sort should be expected of me. Mr. Craddock does not deny that I was told without warning to report to Jersey City as I said at transcript page 371. It is true that I stayed at a bunkhouse provided by the railroad and as I stated at page 373. What Mr. Craddock does not state is that we were allowed to stay at the bunkhouse for only 1 week unti we could find another place to stay. It is true that there is train service between Jersey City and Allentown-there is precisely one train a day.

It is also true that there was passenger service to the various points in the Jersey City area where I am assigned to work. During the rush hours this service is reasonably frequent. But my assignments are not only in the rust hours but at all hours of the day and night. A car is necessary because it just is not practical to rely on the Jersey Central passenger service to all of the points that I am expected to cover.

There is a vast difference between commuting from my home in White Haven to Jim Thorpe or Allentown and commuting to Jersey City and the other points in the Jersey City area where my assignments are. Surely Mr. Craddock knows

this.

Mr. Craddock tries to make it appear as though I had asked a foolish question when I arrived at Jersey City when I asked whether the assignment was temporary or permanent. He says this is more a play on words than a point. He tries to argue that under the bidding and bumping system in the railroad industry there can be no guarantee of permanence to a particular assignment. Of course, I know that there is no guarantee of permanence attached to a "particular assignment." Everybody in the railroad industry knows that. But Mr. Craddock knows also that this was not the point to my question. The point to my question was whether or not I could expect reasonably permanent work in and around the Jersey City area on any assignment. Everybody knows that the Aldine plan goes into effect sometime in 1966, that a large number of passenger trains will be discontinued. This will drastically affect the work opportunities in the Jersey City area.

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF R. E. BRETZ (THE CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. of NEW JERSEY)

I wish to respond to the statement of Mr. J. A. Craddock, vice president and general manager of the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey. Mr. Craddock's statement starts at page 1764 of the transcript of September 27, 1965, and his response to my statement begins at page 1785. Mr. Craddock states that I had "an intermittent and almost casual connection" with the railroad in the 161⁄2 years that I have been with them. To my credit are 133 months as recorded by the Railroad Retirement Board. This number divided by 12 would be equivalent of 11 years of actual working time. I was in the U.S. Army for 2 years during the Korean conflict. After discharge when I reported for work I was furloughed for 2 years. I again lost 8 months from May 1960 to January 1961. To my mind this is not a casual connection.

On page 1786 Mr. Craddock states that in May 1961 before the award I exercised my systemwide seniority to an assignment in Jersey City because of the unavailability of work on the Pennsylvania division and continued this assignment at Jersey City until August 15, 1961. The facts are that I actually worked 3 days in Jersey City after which time I went on the extra list in Phillipsburg, N.J., until August at which time I returned to Jim Thorpe. Phillipsburg is only 38 miles from my home in Jim Thorpe. The commuting time is not quite an hour. I could foresee this move when I chose to go to Jersey City, otherwise I would have taken a job in outside industry. It is true that, as Mr. Craddock says, railroaders have to work away from home. We all realize this. But the reason railroads are divided into divisions is so that a man can at least commute daily by auto to his job on his own division. But for the award I would still be working in my own division.

Let me inform the Senate committee as to what has happend to me since I testified in August. I continued to work out of Raritan, N.J., until the early part of September. At that time the company advertised for a fireman in Ashley, Pa., on the extra list. I bid in this assignment and received it on September 12, reporting ready for duty. The first time I was called to work was on September 18. I had a day's work again on September 20. On September 21 I was taken off the extra list. Now I am working out of Jersey City, 119 miles from home. Mr. Craddock states (p. 1786) that at all times since the award I have had abundant work opportunities but have declined all except those on the Pennsylvania division.

Since September 24 I have been working a passenger assignment from Jersey City to Bayhead, N.J., and return. I commute from my home in Jim Thorpe to Jersey City and return every working day except one out of each week. As for that 1 day, it is impossible due to the time element. I drive by auto from Jim Thorpe to Raritan, N.J., which is 73 highway miles. I ride a passenger train from Raritan to Jersey City to complete the trip. Since September 24 I have put over 14,000 miles on my auto just commuting back and forth to work at my

own expense.