present time there are no firemen in freight service in this seniority d'istrict except on those positions which have been vetoed. Therefore, as long as the arbitration award and the instructions of April 12 are in effect there is no possible method by which more firemen can work road freight assignments in this seniority aistrict. Let us consider another district, one not mentionea by Mr. Farr. The third seniority district at North Platte on August 9 had 42 road freight assignments of which 31 were blanked. Of 24 yard assignments, 14 were blanked. Between August 9 and August 31, business fell off slightly, and yet at the end of that period there were 29 blanked road assignments-only 2 less than previously, whereas the number of blanked yard assignments had dropped from 14 to 4. In other words, what the carrier had done was to open up only 2 additional road assignments but to open up 10 additional yard assignments. The situation which I mentioned above should be contrasted with the situation at Denver, Colo., where there is an actual shortage of firemen. On May 7, 1964, 37 C-2 firemen were severed under the award. At present the shortage of firemen is so acute that enginemen are prohibited from laying off and regularly are exceeding the mileage limitations provided for under the schedule rules. Yet, our efforts to have additional firemen hired at this point have failed. Now let us mention another situation not covered by Mr. Farr. At Marysville, Kans., on October 12, 1965, there were 20 road freight assignments. Of these 17 were blanked. Of six yard assignments, none were blanked. A yard assignment at the far terminal Hastings, Nebr., a distance of 120 miles from the home terminal is not blanked and is filled by firemen from the home terminal even though freight pool turns are running from the home terminal blanked. The men working in the yard assignments have to pay their own expenses and stay away from home 5 days a week. If they were in road service they would get a lodging and food allowance from the carrier and in addition would be earning mileage pay. The expense of living away from home is as follows: the minimum rate at a hotel where the roadmen stay is $2.50 a day and the meal cost is $4 to $5 a day. This comes out to a minimum of $32.50 per week. In addition, if the man drives to his job he has the expense of commuting 120 miles each way. The alternative is to take a freight train which can take 6 hours to get home. Of course, if a man is lucky he may catch a through freight which takes 3 hours, but then he has the waiting time until the departure of the through freight. There is no passenger service in this district. At the Cheyenne yard on August 9, 1965, a major yard which was mentioned by Mr. Farr, there were 30 road freight assignments with 10 blanked and 16 yard assignments with none blanked. All of the foregoing statistics should be compared with the situation prior to April 12, 1965, when there were no road turns blanked. In my initial statement I pointed out another device used by the carrier to restrict the earnings opportunities for C-6 and C-7 firemen. First, let us suppose that a C-6 or C-7 man has a regular assignment which could be blanked by the carrier. If for some reason a veto job requiring the use of a fireman becomes vacant because of the unexpected illness of the regularly assigned man, the carrier will transfer a man off his regularly assigned blankable position, and require him to fill a veto job. Mr. Farr quotes my complaint on this matter at transcript 644, pages 1680-1681 of his statement. His comment on my statement is "This statement is fallacious. To begin with, C-6 or C-7 firemen are not taken from their assignments to fill vetoed positions unless there are no men available on the extra board." After Mr. Farr appeared before this committee we had this precise question come before Mr. R. W. Holland, superintendent of the department of operations in Omaha. The case arose out of a time claim submitted by firemanhostler, W. P. McGuire on September 15, 1965. He was on a regular assignment as a yard fireman which is a blankable position. On that date he was taken off his regular position and was required to work on a hostler position at 14th Street in Omaha. Mr. Holland in a letter to Mr. D. A. Bailey, local chairman at Council Bluffs, Iowa, dated October 21, 1965, turned down a time claim submitted by Mr. McGuire, although Mr. Holland admits that the carrier did exactly what Mr. Farr said they do not do, namely, transfer a man from a regularly assigned blankable position to fill a veto job in order to avoid paying overtime. Let me quote to you the significant paragraph. "At calling time for 12 midnight to 8 a.m. position of hostler at 14th Street, Omaha, there were no available firemen hostlers on the extra board at Council Bluffs to work the straight time rate. [Emphasis added.] It was therefore necessary to call a regular fireman on a comparable shift to fill the vacancy." Toward the bottom of page 1681 Mr. Farr takes exception to my statement at Transcript 645 concerning a bulleting issued by Kansas Division Superintendent Jopling. I state in my original testimony that the purpose of the bulletin was to force every possible man off the extra board. Mr. Farr's comment on this (Tr. 1681) is: "Of course, regulation of extra boards is governed by the agreement between the parties. Any effort by us to unilaterally reduce the board in violation of these agreement provisions is promptly met by the submission of time claims on behalf of the aggrieved employees." We would be very happy if it were the case that regulation of the size of the extra board were governed by agreement between the parties. From time to time the extra board at Council Bluffs, Kansas City, and Salina, as well as at other points have been frozen regardless of the organization's repeated efforts to have men placed on the extra board. (When we say that an extra board has been frozen, we mean that the same number of men are kept on the board regardless of miles run by them.) To prove the accuracy of my statement we have a letter from Mr. C. J. Cross, local chairman of the B.L.F. & E. at Salina, Kans., addressed to Mr. H. B. Jopling, the superintendent at Kansas City, dated July 19, 1956, making time claims for employees because of the failure of the carrier to expand the extra board, as required by the collective bargaining agreement. Jopling replied to Mr. Cross on August 10, 1965, rejecting the time claims and refusing to expand the extra board. He relied upon the Arbitration Board's answer to B.L.F. & E. question 43. This correspondence shows clearly the carrier's position, that it will not abide by the customary practices and agreements with respect to the size of the extra board. Mr. On pages 1682 and 1683 Mr. Farr attempts to show that firemen are being used for substantial amount of overtime work. Let me relate to you one experience I had personally with Mr. N. T. DeLong, assistant to vice president of the Union Pacific. On March 10, 1965, I wrote to Mr. DeLong to submit a time claim on behalf of fireman D. F. Hayes of Kansas City, because he was not called on November 24, 1964. Mr. Hayes had worked a shift that started at 11 p.m. on November 23, 1964. Another job came up at 3:15 p.m. on Novem ber 24 at which time Mr. Hayes was at the top of the extra board but if he had been called he would have been entitled to time and one-half under various provisions of our agreements, which I will not go into here. Because he would have been entitled to time and one-half Mr. Hayes was not called and therefore could not work on November 24. The matter was originally submitted by Local Chairman Risher to Superintendent Jopling. Mr. Jopling allowed fireman Hayes 100 miles pay (i.e. 1 day's pay). I took the matter up with Mr. DeLong, claiming that Mr. Hayes was entitled to 150 miles pay, that is, to time and onehalf. Now what happened? Not only did Mr. DeLong reject the claim for time and one-half pay for the day Mr. Hayes lost, but he actually reversed Mr. Joplings's decision to allow 1 day's pay. The result was that Mr. Hayes got nothing. Before leaving this subject I would like to again call the committee's attention to a bulletin issued in June 1965 by Kansas Division Superintendent Jopling which I quoted at page 645 of the transcript. The relevant portion of that bulletin, after some introductory material, is as follows: "***therefore, you will arrange to fill positions of yard firemen which make no overtime first, then revert to filling other positions which make the least pay per day on their assignment." This bulletin makes crystal clear that firemen's earnings are to be held down. Now let's take a look again at Mr. Farr's chart, page 1683. Mr. Farr lists 11 firemen with their time on services from August 16, 1965, through August 25, 1965. The purpose of the chart is to show that these men earned substantial overtime. The fact of the matter is that the great bulk of the overtime shown or this schedule actually was on veto jobs or on jobs where firemen were working as engineers not as firemen. The details are as follows: On August 23, 1965, A. H. Amrein worked 3 hours and 30 minutes overtime on a hostling position. On August 18 and 22, 1965, T. L. Kokoruda worked as an engineer. On August 18, 1965, K. A. Thompson, Jr. worked vetoed job No. 8. On August 24, 1965, R. L. Irvin worked vetoed job No. 50. Let me explain the above table. For example, take the case of Mr. A. H. Amrein. Mr. Amrein is shown as working overtime 3 hours and 30 minutes on August 23, 1965. On that particular day Mr. Amrein was working a hostling position which requires a fireman in any event. This was not overtime on a blankable job. Mr. Farr is attempting to create the erroneous impression that these men earned overtime on blankable positions. The fact is that they were earning most of their overtime on "must" jobs and while working as an engineer. This was true, not only for Mr. Amrein, but also for the other 10 men. In my initial statement I said that the carrier had taken the position that any firemen who had been severed under any portion of the arbitration award would not be reemployed at any time in any type of service of Union Pacific. (See transcript, p. 650.) Mr. Farr states at page 1684 "This statement is untrue. Some severed C-2 firemen who have applied for reemployment have been hired." Mr. Farr then goes on to state that 24 C-2 firemen have been reemployed, 19 of them before these hearings began. At page 10 of Mr. Farr's mimeographed statement which he submitted to the committee, Mr. Farr states that some severed C-2 firemen who have applied for reemployment had been hired: “As a matter of fact two of the dual seniority firemen whose plight is discussed by Green on pages 645-649 are now working in other departments." Let me tell you the story of one of those men, Mr. Charles Klouda. Mr. Klouda is now working as a boilermaker at the Omaha shops. He was hired on September 14, 1953, as a fireman-helper at Laramie, Wyo. On October 2, 1962, he was furloughed at Laramie and was employed as a fireman at Denver. On May 6, 1964, Mr. Klouda received a letter from the Superintendent at Denver terminating his seniority there and offering him the option under C-3 of accepting a severance allowance or maintaining his seniority at Laramie. He elected to remain in the service. Notice at this point Mr. Klouda already had over 10 years' service with the carrier at Laramie and therefore if all of his earnings for the carrier wherever earned had been counted, he would have been a C-7 employee. Nevertheless, he was classified as a C-3 employee because he did not earn the required $200 per month at Laramie during the 24 months preceding the award. Only a few months later, on July 6, 1964, the carrier terminated his seniority at Laramie and paid him his severance allowance. About July 10, Mr. Klouda was told by Superintendent Colombo that he could be employed as a fireman on the northwest district of the Union Pacific at Walla Walla, Wash. Instead of making the trip out to Walla Walla, Mr. Klouda first telephoned the engine dispatcher at Walla Walla to inquire about employment opportunities and was told that there was no employment available for him anywhere on the northwest district. That same day he applied for a position as brakeman at Laramie but was refused employment. Mr. Klouda had prior experience as a carman and from August 1964 through January 1965 had applied to the Union Pacific six different times for employment as a carman at Denver. At his sixth trip to Denver he was finally told that he could not be employed by the Union Pacific because he was a severed fireman-helper. Finally on March 23, 1965, he was successful in exercising his seniority as a boilermaker at Omaha, Nebr. However he was able to secure this job only with the assistance of representatives of the boilermakers craft. In the 12 months before the award he earned $7,298.16 according to the carrier. He now works as a boilermaker for $516 per month or a little over $6,000 per year. In addition, his job is 600 miles from his home at Laramie, Wyo. Now let me tell you the struggle we had to go through to secure employment for the other severed Č-2 firemen mentioned by Mr. Farr. His name is De Los Dean of Evanston, Wyo. After he was severed as a fireman he was denied employment as a laborer for a period of 1 year from his severance date. On July 15, 1965, I was in Evanston where he had been promised a job as a flagman on the maintenance of way division of the Union Pacific. Just prior to the day that he expected to go to work, Mr. Dean was advised that headquarters in Omaha had denied the local people the right to rehire him as a flagman. I immediately called from Evanston to Mr. N. P. DeLong, assistant to the vice president, and exerted every possible effort to have his application approved for employment. The following day I arrived in Omaha and found that Mr. DeLong was attempting to have the application approved but said that a severed fireman could not be hired in any capacity without the express approval of the vice president of operations. Within a day or two the approval did come and Mr. Dean went to work as a flagman. 61-927-66-pt. 2- -12 At page 1685 Mr. Farr states: "The C-3 firemen, who had limited earnings in the 2-year period prior to the award, which Mr. Green discussed on page 649 have all been offered employment on another division of the railroad and all but two have rejected the offer." These men include the following: Mr. Bruce V. White: Attached as exhibit 1 is a statement from Mr. White. He was told that there was a job opening for a fireman in Walla Walla, Wash. He states that he was a little skeptical about moving without full knowledge of the job. He drove to Walls Walla the next day and talked to the engine dispatcher there. The engine dispatcher knew nothing about hiring any firemen. Mr. White then spoke to the local chairman and asked him about the job-how steady it was, etc. The local chairman said that he was "surprised to hear that they were hiring any firemen. He said that he didn't see how it could be year-around work because there were men with several years seniority who were still getting laid off for 5 to 6 months each winter and that if I did hire out I would probably be laid off around December." "After talking it over with my wife, we decided we didn't want to sell our home and move 600 miles to start out all over again on a new road for a job that would only be as good as the job that I started out with 12 years ago." We are shocked that Mr. Farr would make the contention that this was a bona fide job offer rejected by an employee. Another fireman whom Mr. Farr no doubt considers rejected employment was Mr. J. A. Bartlett of Laramie, Wyo. On May 17, 1965, Mr. K. I. Jones, superintendent of the Wyoming division, wrote to Mr. Bartlett, as follows: "It appears we may have some openings for firemen on the Oregon division, which no doubt would be steadier work than you are getting at present in your own district, and I would appreciate your advising me if you desire to accept employment on that division. Mr. Bartlett wrote to the Oregon division and on August 3, 1965, received an answer from Mr. N. B. Beckley, assistant to the vie president, personnel, stating: "Presently, our need for firemen on the Oregon division has become less acute due to several factors." Mr. Beckley then stated other reasons why there were no openings for firemen and concluded his letter as follows: "If a need should develop for firemen in this territory, it would properly be in the Dalles-La Grande territory and the duration of the work is somewhat indefinite." Similar nonexistent "jobs" were offered to the following: K. G. Kinsolving. R. H. Storer. Mr. Marion T. Tallent stated to B.L.F. & E. he had received a letter dated May 17, 1964, offering a job on the Oregon district. He was skeptical about it. Mr. Tallent wrote us: "I could not see losing my home, uprooting my children from school and venturing off to Oregon where there appeared there may be some openings." Fortunately Mr. Tallent had the good sense not to uproot himself for a nonexistent job. Mr. J. Krafczik, Jr., wrote that he had also received the letter of May 17, 1965, and his comment was as follows: "Jarvis Bartlett, another cutoff fireman, did follow through with this so-called proposition; had bag and baggage ready and was completely and conveniently forgotten. Therefore I thought it useless to do the same.' At page 1689 Mr. Farr makes the astounding statement: "We said we would offer these men employment as firemen, full-time employment as firemen on another division, without loss of the C-3 status, which they retained in their own seniority district. In other words this was an interim arrangement. They can go up here until they work themselves up to the point where they can have regular work in their own district." I have shown above that this statement is simply not true. Mr. Klouda and Mr. Dean are the only men that I know of who have been rehired by the Union Pacific. I might mention also at this point that I have made numerous efforts to have Mr. Kent Ottley reemployed by the Union Pacific but so far have been unsuccessful. The committee will recall that Mr. Ottley and his wife both appeared before this committee to explain what had happened to them. Since then Mr. Ottley has been unable to keep up the payments on his home. He lost his home and was forced to move. Recently Mr. Ottley finally secured a position with a take home pay of only $80 per week. Starting on page 1698, Mr. Farr comments on the testimony of Robert D. Stensvad who appeared before this committee. See volume 6 of the transcript pages 669-677. We hope to obtain Mr. Stensvad's reinstatement or a recom putation of the severance allowance for him and accordingly I will say nothing more about his case. Regarding Mr. Mathewson, whose testimony appears in the transcript of August 11, starting at page 677; Mr. Farr (p. 1742) says nothing which challenges Mr. Mathewson's statements. Mr. Farr states, page 1736, "I recall very clearly that many firemen who could hold lucrative freight jobs in the pool, elected to take hostler assignments so they could stay home." It is my experience that there are few, if any, firemen who choose hostling in lieu of road freihgt assignments. The opportunities for increased earnings are so much better in road freight assignments that practically nobody deliberately takes a hostling assignment. (There are, however, some men in hostling service who are termed "restrictive hostlers" who are not permitted to hold road jobs usually because of health reasons.) At page 1750 Mr. Farr states with respect to any C-6 firemen entitled to a 5-year guaranty of earnings, that these men can come in at any time and ask for an accounting. The transcript then shows: "Senator MONRONEY. And you will meet the annual figure if he requests it? "Mr. FARR. Absolutely." Let me tell you about my experience: During the winter of 1965 I went to Assistant Vice President N. T. DeLong and asked if he would give Mr. McConahay, one of the witnesses who testified before this committee, an advance on his guaranty which was due. Mr. DeLong refused to do so. A final point: On June 23, 1965, I received from Mr. DeLong a "Notice of Nondiscrimination in Employment," stating that the Union Pacific Railroad would not discriminate with respect to race, creed, color, or nationality. A covering letter was sent to me by Mr. DeLong on June 23 stating that "* * * it is the policy of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. to treat all employees at the time of recruitment and during the period of employment without differentiation based upon race, creed, color, age, or similar considerations." Thus, by the covering letter, Mr. DeLong indicated that the carrier intended to go beyond the literal requirements of the Civil Rights Act and intended completely to ban all forms of discrimination in employment. I replied to Mr. DeLong on June 29 stating that it is our understanding that effective July 2, 1965, that the bar placed on hiring of severed firemen who were severed under the Award of Arbitration Board No. 282, will be lifted." On July 12, 1965, Mr. DeLong replied to me stating "I am not aware of any necessity because of the Civil Rights Act, to make any changes with respect to our practices concerning the rehiring of severed firemen." I wrote again to Mr. DeLong on July 6, 1965, stating: "With one exception, these men, as well as all other firemen who have been severed under the award, have in effect had a blackball placed against their being able to get any type of employment on the Union Pacific." I have never had a response to that letter. We turn to the carrier exhibit, "Carrier Analysis of B.L.F. & E. Hardship Claims," submitted by W. L. Burner, Jr. This huge exhibit of 115 pages purports to analyze the hardship questionnaires previously submitted to this committee by the B.L.F. & E. Because of the enormous number of individuals involved, it has not been possible for us to make a complete examination and analysis of the carrier exhibit as we do not have the resources and manpower which the carriers have at their disposal. We have, however, made an examination of some of the carrier claims regarding employees of the Union Pacific and present in this statement our findings with respect to those employees. (1) First, as to page 114, line 1, A. G. McAlister. The carrier states in column 12, "Even though C-2 R.R. offered job, he refused." This so-called job was to a nonexistent position at Walla Walla 1500 miles from Mr. McAlister's home. On June 16, 1965, Mr. Glynn M. Matteson, local chairman, wrote a letter to H. P. Jopling, superintendent at Kansas City, requesting that Mr. Gayle McAlister be rehired. The letter states that Mr. McAlister was a C-3 fireman and when the company offered him severance pay, he did not desire to be severed but when he was sent a check, he reluctantly cashed it. Mr. Matteson continued "Mr. McAlister would like to return the severance pay he received and return to his status at Sharon Springs.' On August 12, Mr. Jopling replied to Mr. Matteson, stating: "I have been advised by the management that we will not reemploy as firemen, any former firemen separated from the service under the provisions of Arbitration Board 282 at this time." This correspondence is attached as exhibit What more can I say? 2. (2) Mr. C. Klouda. The carrier states in column 12. "Refused foreman's job on another district." We have already discussed Mr. Klouda's case me : |