Lapas attēli


This statement is a rebuttal statement to the statement of L. M. Fox, assistant manager of personnel, Southern Pacific Co., Pacific Lines, which appears in the transcript for September 28, 1965, at page 1919. My initial statement appears in the transcript for August 11, 1965, at page 610.

The statement of Mr. Fox does not challenge the principal points that I made in my initial statement. He admits that there has been an enormous drop in the number of firemen employed on the Southern Pacific, Pacific Lines, that the carrier separated so many men from service that it was necessary to hire new men to fill "must" jobs in some areas, that C-6 firemen were offered so-called comparable jobs which were in fact common labor and janitorial jobs, or the jobs were of a type which included in their scope common labor or janitorial service, that so-called comparable jobs were offered which required nearly continuous travel from place to place, far from the employee's home, and that C-6 firemen who took comparable jobs were not recalled to service as firemen even when there were firemen positions available.

Further, the carrier spokesman admits that men were shuttled about from one location to another at the convenience of the carrier. It is admitted by the carrier that on the Northwestern Pacific, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific. the carrier dealt individually with its C-7 firemen trying to induce them to tak severance allowances or comparable jobs, despite the fact that at all times the B.L.F. & E. was the duly certified collective bargaining representative of these employees. Despite the testimony, purportedly to the contrary, it is clear that several accidents might not have occurred had there been a firemen on the locomotive. Finally, there is no question that many severed employees have suffered very substantial hardships through loss of their positions.


In general, the carrier's statement is a catalog of minor flaws and imperfections that have been found in my statement. For example, at page 1920, it is stated that approximately 900 firemen have been separated from service rather than 1,100 as I stated on page 612. My figure of 1,100 men separated included 576 C-2 men, which was the number given to me by a carrier representative. The carrier now uses the number 482. This alone accounts for almost 100 of the 200 difference between the 1,100 figure I used and carrier's figure of 900. When we include those who resigned, or who were terminated just prior to the implementa tion of the award of Arbitration Board No. 282, my statement is essentially correct.

The carrier finds fault with my statement on page 612, that the carrier applied the award on the Tucson-Rio Grande Division on May 7, 1964, which was the date the award became effective. His point is that the first job was not blanket on May 7, but on May 10. Incidentally, he admits at page 1923 that on May 7, the very first day the carrier could do so, it abolished the assignments of firemen or the Tucson seniority district, and required these firemen to work elsewhere. What was not said by the carrier about these men, is that they were required to go from El Paso, Tex., to Tucson, Ariz., a distance of about 300 miles, where they worked for several weeks during the height of the melon shipping season. They earned little or no overtime pay, and they had to bear their own expenses of living away from home for a period of several weeks.

Regarding offers of comparable jobs: It is necessary to consider together th question of the number of comparable jobs to be offered C-6 firemen, and the nature of these jobs. It was my understanding, as I stated in my original testimony at page 613, that the carrier would offer only a limited number of positions to the C-6 firemen. I assumed that these jobs would be bona fide jobs offered in good faith. I thought that they would be reasonable jobs which carried reasonable oppotunities for promotion, for earning a decent wage and reasonable working conditions. It was on this assumption that I informed our members si the meetings that I referred to at page 613 that they ought to take the jobs offered to them. If jobs of that character had in fact been offered to them, I thought the men would be better off with the jobs and a 5-year earning guarantee than with severance pay.

Many of the jobs were not the sort that were in fact offered to the C-6 men. Many of the jobs offered included common labor or manual tasks in their scope. or they were jobs that required excessive travel or that were undesirable in all or some of the various ways mentioned at page 614 and following portion of my state ment. Naturally, the men offered jobs of this character thought that they would be better off taking severance pay, despite the fact that many really wanted to remain in the industry. It was because the carrier violated the spirit of the

[ocr errors]

award regarding the kinds of comparable jobs to be offered that the company was able to eliminate C-6 firemen in, wholesale lots by offering a relatively small number of comparable jobs. (See p. 1923.)

The carrier, in fact, admits our charge that the so-called comparable jobs frequently involved handling freight, baggage, mail, or express. It is admitted at page 1926 that janitor work and common labor have been required of some former C-6 firemen.

The carrier does not deny the charge we made at page 615 that clerks from San Luis Obispo were required to go to San Francisco to work, 250 miles away. p. 1927.)


An attempt was made by the carrier to make it appear as though the telegrapher's travel obligations were no more onerous than those of the firemen. (See p. 1928.) It is true that a junior fireman might have to do a certain amount of traveling in order to work. If there is no work for him at his home, he might have to work at some other terminal within the seniority district. As he rose up the seniority ladder, however, ordinarily he would have less and less work away from home: If he was in yard service he would expect to spend his time usually working in the yard at the city where he lived. If he was in road service, he would expect to have a run originating or ending in his home city. Remember, however, that the C-6 men to whom comparable jobs were offered were not beginners. They all had at least 2 years' seniority, and some had close to 10 years' seniority, and in fact, some, on the date they were severed, actually had more than 10 years' seniority as firemen. Many had studied for, taken, and passed promotional examinations, and had seniority dates as engineers. Furthermore, when a fireman is assigned away from his home terminal, there are only five other points at which he works in the Tucson district. Ordinarily, after he had spent 2 or 3 weeks away from home terminal, he could expect to again be able to work at his home terminal.

The so-called comparable jobs as telegraphers are entirely different. The telegrapher positions open were not regular assignments but were jobs filling in for telegraphers absent because of vacations, illness, or for other reasons. A telegrapher is expected to cover anywhere between as many as 25 to 30 individual stations along the route. Many of these stations are isolated wayside shacks where a telegrapher is on duty for 8 hours and off for 16. He has to cook for himself. He takes along a bedroll. There are no restrooms handy. He may be assigned to such a post for a day, a few days, or several weeks, and then is moved on to some other point. He does not know when he will get home to see his family.

The B.L.F. & E. has no knowledge respecting the table as set forth at pages 1930-1931. Note, however, that June and July are exceptionally busy months on the railroad because of the tremendous volume of agricultural produce hauled on this road in those months.

Our point about the attrition agreement (see p. 1931) is simply that there had been such a sharp decline in employment among telegraphers that the Order of Railroad Telegraphers felt compelled to obtain the attrition agreement.

At page 1932 the carrier admits that the earnings of the former C-6 firemen who accepted jobs as switchmen at Oakland and Port Costa were limited in January 1965, since they were working on extra lists. It wasn't only in January that their earnings were limited. Mr. Ralph D. Ranger, Jr., wrote a letter on May 5, 1965, giving his work history from January 1, 1965. In January he worked 12 days, in February, 3 days (plus 14 days vacation), March 7 days, April, 5 days, and May 1-5, 1 day. This is a man offered a so-called comparable job as switchman who got in actually 28 days work in a period of over 4 months. These men wanted and expected jobs more than they wanted to just be paid wage guarantees.

Another employee, Mr. W. B. Macomber, up to May 6, 1965, put in only 21 days and Mr. C. F. Seames, the most junior of the men who elected to work at Port Costa worked only 3 days. In fact, the carrier admits at page 1933 that many of the former C-6 firemen have very little work available. It is claimed, however, that as of September 28, 1965, work had picked up. Remember again, that September is a very busy month on the Southern Pacific Railroad, because it is a harvest month and much produce is shipped to market.

At page 1934 the carrier admits that when it was necessary to hire firemen because an excess number of firemen had been dismissed, the carrier did not offer jobs to former C-6 firemen (2–10-year men) who had taken comparable jobs but offered the jobs to former C-2 firemen (less than 2-year men). We think that the former C-6 men had a superior claim to the jobs over the C-2 men to engine service. In general, the carrier would have obtained more experienced, better

employees-employees who were closer to being promoted to engineer. There were no contractual agreements nor other reasons why the C-6 men could not have been restored to engine service. Note also that B.L.F. & E. qeustion 23 quoted by carrier spokesman at page 1935 is not in point. That question concerns itself with the situation where an employee takes a comparable job and the comparable job itself is abolished. That, of course, is not the situation now under consideration. Regarding pages 1938-39, I have already commented upo the difference between the firemen who work away from home and the telegrapher who is assigned to any one of the numerous wayside stations. The portion of the award relating to relocation expenses obviously has no relevance to the situation before us.

We complained previously about delay in payment of the guarantee. At this point, let me again stress that the Southern Pacific, unlike many other carriers. has undertaken to pay the guarantee on a monthly basis rather than on an annusi basis. The men affected certainly appreciate this and the brotherhood recognizes that this method of payment has alleviated a great deal of hardship. I must add, however, that for some time the guarantees were being paid by the 10th of the following month. Then the payroll department, without any adequate warning or notice to the men affected, changed the payment to the 25th of the following month. Therefore many men who were expecting to get a check for say $500 wound up with a check for $100, and had to wait 2 weeks to get the balance of their money. This caused hardship in many cases. There was no need for making a change of this character without advance notice to the employees.

Regarding C-7 men, carrier at page 1940, makes the very point we have sought to drive home. There, it is admitted that firemen who formerly held road jobs, have been reassigned to 5-day yard assignments; hence their earnings have declined. Remember, that these men have 10 years or more seniority. Because of their long seniority, these men thought that they would not be adversely affected by the award. The fact is that they have been adversely affected. Carrier claims that they have a "very special advantage" of guaranteed employment in engine service for the remainder of their working careers. As men with 10 years seniority prior to the award, the likelihood or possibility that they would be fur loughed was small. The drastic declines in earnings that these men have suffered is a high price to pay for a nominal increase in employment security.

At page 1941, carrier makes reference to the men who lose days of work because they are bumped off a job. It is true that bumping rights existed long before the award. In the main, however, they affected new employees. They did no affect firemen with 10 years or more seniority except in rare or unusual circumstances. The harsh fact is that men with long seniority, in effect, have to undergo the hardships ordinarily suffered by newcomers in the industry. Further, before the award, when a man was bumped on a job, he stood a chance to make up the pay by bumping someone else on a Saturday or Sunday. Now the carrier holds down work opportunities very strictly. Hence, if a day is missed through bumping, it is very difficult for the employee to make up the lost wages.

The discussion by carrier of B.L.F. & E. question 42 on pages 1942-1944 illustrates the carrier's tendency to resolve doubtful questions in its favor and against the employees. I don't want to go into the details of this point. Suffice it to say that under our schedule agreements with the carrier, where an employee is used on an assignment in another service at the instance of the company, and receives less pay than he would have received, the carrier is supposed to make up the difference. The carrier now used B.L.F. & E. question 42 as an excuse not to apply this rule where a fireman is working a blankable job. The fact of the matter is in these cases that, at the carrier's instance, the fireman is removed from the job, he would ordinarily have held on a particular day, and assigned to another position. He suffers a loss in wages and yet the carrier refuses to make the loss good to him despite a schedule rule which provides that the carrier shall do just exactly that. In attachment B at page 1961 the reason I referred simply to the use of firemen as emergency engineers was because that was the only question before us at the time. It may be of some interest to the good Senators to know that our resubmission of the question to the reconvened aribtration board brough another answer, showing the carrier erred. Think, however, of the weeks and months that elapsed between the date the carrier took the position, and the date that money due the firemen was paid. Additionally, the brotherhood has no way of knowing just exactly how many men, through disgust, misunderstandings. etc., failed to file or progress through regular channels claims for their addtions. money due them. It is believed, however, that substantial sums may have bee involved.

At page 1944, the carrier objects to my use of the term "shuttling" regarding the transfer of employees from the Shasta District in Oregon to California and back again to their former assignments-or the Shasta District at Klamath Falls, Oreg. If this transfer of employees, a distance of 96 miles, is not shuttling, then I don't know the meaning of the term. Obviously 96 miles is too far for daily commuting. Please note also that there is no denial of the fact that the men did not receive expense money when they were required to work in Dunsmuir, rather than in Klamath Falls where their homes were.

Despite protestations to the countrary, the carrier does not disagree basically with my statement regarding the carrier methods used to force men from Los Angeles to Indio, Calif., 129 miles east (see pp. 627-628 of my statement and pp. 1945-1946 of Mr. Fox's statement). The reason the carrier used the means it did take to force men from Los Angeles to Indio was that it wanted to avoid payment of wages for deadheading from Los Angeles to Indio. Had straightforward methods been used to assign men to Indio, deadheading payment and certain guarantees would have been required under the schedule rules. In this instance, too, the reconvened arbitration board held the carrier to have been in error in its position, but who will adjust the man's earnings, who will pay his expenses, who will undo the mental trauma suffered by the men as a result of the carrier's position? Interpretation 74 was simply a device used to avoid this payment.

I have already commented about the private offers to C-7 men on the Northwestern Pacific (see pp. 1929-1950 of Mr. Fox's statement).

Regarding accidents, it is clear that, had there been a fireman on the locomotive operated by Engineer Maasen (see p. 1952 of Mr. Fox's statement), the accident would not have occurred. It is our understanding that the automobile approached the locomotive from the fireman's side, not from the engineer's side (see p. 1953). Further, it is probable that Switchman Wright would not have been killed had there been a fireman on board the locomotive. An alert fireman could and without doubt would have stopped the locomotive immediately when Mr. White stepped back (see pp. 1954-1955 of Mr. Fox's statement).

A few remarks now about the various hardship cases which I mentioned pre viously, starting at page 632 of the transcript. Fireman G. G. Mathis not only was required to move, but also apparently was offered a position on the extra board at Oakland where he would be on duty, subject to call at any time. No comment is made on this aspect of Mr. Mathis' letter (see pp. 1955-1956). Regarding former fireman, T. S. Carl, whom I mentioned on page 633 (see p. 1956 for Mr. Fox's remark), he was cut off 3 days before he would have earned a vacation for 1965. The point we were making was simply that, because the carrier jumped at the opportunity to cut off Mr. Carl, the very moment it could do so under the award, he not only lost his job, but also lost his 1964 vacation. Whatever may be the merits of the case under the collective bargaining contract, the fact is that this was a very harsh result for Mr. Carl. In regard to Mr. Barry (see my statement pp. 633–634 and Mr. Fox's statement p. 1957) by the carrier's own statement, this C-7 fireman earned about $500 less in the year following the award than he earned in the year preceding the award.

Regarding Mr. R. J. Kilgore (see my statement p. 634 and Mr. Fox's statement at p. 1957), he wrote us on October 13, 1965, that the only work now available to him is on the extra board doing 5 day yard work even though there are pool freight jobs which have been blanked.

Regarding Mr. Rice and Mr. Thomas (see my statement p. 634 and Mr. Fox's statement p. 1957), there is evidently a mistake in the court reporter's transcript. My mimeographed statement regarding Mr. Rice reads as follows:

"Mr. A. J. Rice of 2023 South Second Street, Tucumcari, N. Mex., wrote me on January 5, 1965, that even though he has 19 years seniority as a fireman, he has made as little as 1 day's pay in a week." The statement regarding Mr. Thomas reads as follows:

"Mr. Joe H. Thomas of 1301 South Jackson Street, Tucumcari, N. Mex., wrote me on March 4 that he has 111⁄2 years service as a fireman. He was just getting to the point where he could work most of the time but did not quite qualify as a C-7 man under the $4,800 rule." Then Mr. Thomas' letter continues as it is presented at the bottom of page 634.

Regarding Mr. Thomas, there appears to be no justification for Mr. Fox characterizing this man as a "part-time employee" (p. 1958). By the carrier's own statement at page 108, Mr. Thomas earned over $4,200 in the 12 months prior to the award. Evidently Mr. Thomas worked whenever there was work available. The cold fact is that after working for the company for 11 years, at age 42, he is now out of a job.

It stands admitted on the record that Mr. Paulsen (see p. 635 of my statement and p. 1958 of Mr. Fox's statement) after working for the carrier over 5 years, was dismissed with $350 severance pay. Mr. Paulsen's job problem was made more serious because he has a 15-month-old daughter who is ill.


(Union Pacific Railroad Co. Lines East)

In rebuttal to statement of G. L. Farr and W. L. Burner, Jr.

This statement is in rebuttal to the testimony of Mr. G. L. Farr, vice presiden of labor relations, Union Pacific Railroad Co. which appears in the transcript for September 27, 1965, starting at page 1662. This statement was in response to my initial statement which appears in the transcript for August 11, 1965, starting & page 638. Mr. Farr devotes the first several pages of his testimony to replying to the statement of Mr. H. E. Gilbert, president of B.L.F. & E. His response to my statement commences at page 1671.

On page 1671, Mr. Farr states that on August 9, 1965, just before I appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee there were 386 C-6 and C-7 firemer | assigned to firemen positions in road service on the eastern district of the Unio Pacific. Mr. Farr states that of these 386, 91 had advanced to position of engi neer, 88 had moved up to position of passenger firemen, 143 had retained ther positions in freight service, 1 was working in hostling service, 19 had reverted to yard service and 4 had been removed by attrition and 40 were working on road and yard extra boards.

What Mr. Farr does not mention is that in August, business is usually at its peak, because of the requirements for cars for transporting farm products and high passenger traffic. In the fall of the year, however, when business drops off, ther the men promoted to engineer and passenger firemen ordinarily resume their positions as firemen in freight service. The instructions issued by management c April 12, 1965, however, are designed to prohibit the firemen from returning to the advantageous jobs that they held before promotions generated by summer ircreases in business. Instead, under the April 12 memorandum they are required to return to lesser paying jobs selected by management.

At page 1672 Mr. Farr states that the average monthly earnings of the 386 Cand C-7 employees in July 1965 was approximately $30 per month greater than it was in March 1965, the month preceding the instructions of April 12. This increase reflects promotions resulting from the summer expansion of business Mr. Farr states categorically that of the 386 employees, 19 had reverted to yar: service. Had it not been for the instructions of April 12, most of the 19 men would not have reverted to yard service. Others of the 19 reverted to yard service as result of other company practices such as the following: the company changed the starting time on a local freight assignment. The change of the starting tim required a rebulletining of the assignment. The fireman on the job was remove. and was permitted to exercise his seniority in yard service only. No fireman was assigned on the rebulletined assignment. Others of the 19 men reverted to yard service as a result of fluctuations in the number of engineers needed on the engi- · neers extra board. When a man was removed from the engineers extra board he was forced to exercise his seniority as a fireman in yard service rather than in road freight service.

The stark fact is that on August 9, 1965, the day before I testified, there wer on the eastern district 433 road freight assignments of which 245 were blanked There were 260 yard assignments of which 150 were blanked. Despite Mr Farr's attempts to paint a rosy picture, the fact is that there were 110 (260–150 blanked pool freight assignments which would have been filled by C-6 and Cfiremen who were held on yard assignments as a result of the April 12, 196 instructions.

At page 1679 Mr. Farr makes the statement that in seniority districts wher there are major yard operations such as Omaha-Council Bluffs, Kansas City Denver, and Cheyenne attrition and increased business, or at least the mainte nance of the present business level, should result in most of the firemen now ? freight service being able to maintain their present positions.

Let us look at the facts regarding this matter: On August 9, the day before. testified, there were 37 road freight assignments in the Omaha-Council Bluf seniority district and 82 yard assignments. Of the 37 road assignments 32 wer blanked by the carrier and of the 82 yard assignments 55 were blanked. At th

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »