At transcript 1980 to 1981 the carrier witness refers to an exhibit introduced by carrier witness Burner from which carrier witness Smith argues that no "real hardship" has been caused by the award. He says that was with respect to 20 of 38 hardship surveys filed with this committee, the men involved earn more money for the 12-month period after the award than before. As already noted, this form of comparison is grossly misleading. The only comparable period in which a test can be made is for the 12 months prior and subsequent to November 1964. It was in November 1964 that the carrier began the destruction of seniority rights. Thus, most of the senior firemen's jobs and the earnings that went with those jobs remained unchanged until November 1964. Also there was, as previously noted, a general wage increase to firemen retroactive to January 1965. But even assuming for the purpose of argument that some firemen earned mcre money subsequent to November 1964, that does not alleviate the hardships that they have suffered. A man may prefer to work for $100 a month less provided he does not have to work 100 miles away from his home and family. This aspect of the hardship imposed on the men has never been, and is not now being given consideration by the carrier. Further, any increase in gross income subsequent to November 1964, as shown by the carrier's figures, does not take into account at all the commuting and away from home expenses these men must bear. Even if some men maintained or increased their gross income for the year subsequent to November 1964, in order to do so, they frequently have had to work double shifts and excessive overtime because of the great shortage of firemen which this railroad has created as a result of a board award 282. The B.L.F. & E. will answer in a separate exhibit in more detailed fashion the statements contained in carrier witness Burner's exhibit. Finally, with respect to the men who were forced to commute in order to retain railroad employment, there is one fact which stands out among all others and which is undisputed by the railroad. There are freight jobs that are being run out of town A, both before and subsequent to award 282. There are many firemen living in or near town A who prior to the award were operating these freight jobs in and out of town A. The carrier is now running these jobs without firemen. The firemen who want to remain in service with the railroad are forced by the railroad to work in town B, even though town B may be 150 miles from town A and there is work available in town A. There is nothing in Public Law 88-108, or the award of arbitration 282 which requires or justifies the carrier's forcing men away from their homes if they want to remain in service with this railroad. These men have 10, 20, or 25 years of seniority with the railroad and should not be treated this way. The railroad has not, and cannot, offer any justification for its treatment of them. With respect to my statement regarding the size of extra boards, the carrier admits that the extra board is a perferred place to work and that the number of men assignable to the extra boards has been sharply reduced (transcript, p. 1981). Of course, this results from the carrier's unilateral abolition of seniority rights with respect to freight assignments (transcript, pp. 544–545). Contrary to the assertion of this carrier witness, I am unaware of advising him or the members of this committee that the carrier has made all the assignments in compliance with the award or that the railroad has done a good job in the application of the award (transcript, p. 1982). The carrier says it is "surprised" because I said that time claims are being filed by the thousands for the difference in pay between the jobs to which firemen were previously assigned and the jobs to which they are now assigned. The carrier's surprise can hardly be squared with their admission that the claims have been filed (transcript, p. 1982). With respect to the Arkansas full-crew law, I previously explained how the carrier imposed hardships on certain firemen by reducing their pay and causing them to wait 4 or 5 hours for a return trip in order to obtain the minimum pay (transcript, pp. 545–548). The carrier witness' response, while depreciating the firemen and calling the Arkansas full-crew law and "excess crew law," does not deny any of the allegations contained in my statement (transcript, pp. 1982-1983). In my previous statement I said there were about seven C-7 firemen who had more than 10 years of seniority who were erroneously classified as C-3 firemen (transcript, pp. 548-549). The carrier says in response: "We have been unable to find but three" (transcript, p. 1984). I don't know exactly what that statement means, but the fact is there were seven such senior firemen. In addition to the three men named by the carrier witness, claims have been filed also by O. I. Ricci and D. L. Goodwin. There are also two other firemen who, for other reasons, have not filed claims. The carrier does not deny that some of these men were erroneously dismissed from service and that some of them were off the job for at 1184 least 6 months before they were reinstated. Moreover, by the carrier's own admission only one of the men has received any backpay (transcript, p. 1984). With respect to the carrier's disadvantaging the C-3 firemen who were improperly classified as such, the carrier witness completely misses the mark. What the carrier did was to eliminate a number of regular freight jobs which were held by the senior C-6 and C-7 firemen, thus forcing that number of senior firemen to displace the C-3 firemen from the extra board (transcript, p. 550). The carrier's statement that this was done because the award "protected" C-6 and C-7 men, but not C-3 men (transcript, p. 1984) has a hollow ring indeed. were interested in protecting the senior firemen, they would not have displaced them from their regular jobs in the first place. If the carrier loughed from the extra board, under the existing rules, there was no downward At the time C-3 men were furadjustment necessary regarding size of the extra board. due solely to the carrier's abolishing unilaterally the seniority rights of the senior firemen, thus forcing them on to the extra board which, in turn, resulted in the Their displacement was furloughing of the C-3 firemen. I turn now to the carrier witness' attempt to answer the statement of firemen, L. E. Kempfer and C. M. Maness. The carrier witness says that it was an exaggeration for Mr. Kempfer to state that he suffered an earnings loss of $300 a month. The carrier's conclusion is based on its statement that it could find nothing in the record that Mr. Kempfer was ever regularly assigned to through freight service between Dupo and Poplar Bluff. The carrier does admit, however, that Kempfer did exercise his seniority to one of these assignments in November 1964 (transcript, p. 1985); and the fact is Mr. Kempfer was regularly assigned to freight pool No. 2 with engineer D. T. Guess in November 1964. That job was paying an average of $847 a month. earnings are now only $580.12 a month (transcript, p. 1985), it is clear that Mr. Since the carrier admits that Mr. Kempfer's Kempfer did not exaggerate. If the carrier had not unilaterally abolished the right of the firemen to exercise their seniority on these pool freight assignments it is unquestioned that Mr. Kempfer had sufficient seniority to continue in pool freight service and the job would have paid him an average of $847 a month, instead of the $580 he has been earning. Furthermore, the carrier did not challenge the fact that Mr. Kempfer has been forced on to a hostling job on a shift that begins at 9 p.m. and terminates at 5 a.m. This is hardly the kind of work to which a 51-year-old man with 22 years of seniority with this railroad should be forced to take. Of course, Mr. Kempfer was speaking not only for himself but for all other firemen who were similarly situated to him. Mr. Kempfer's statement to the effect that the carrier denied the firemen the right to exercise their seniority to the better paying jobs was not denied by the carrier witness. Incidentally, on freight pool No. 2 to which Mr. Kempfer was assigned, there were 12 freight assignments. Three of these were vetoed and the carrier decided in November 1964 to blank the other nine assignments. This, of course, caused many other firemen to be displaced from the freight pool assignment and they were relegated, like Mr. Kempfer, to lower paying jobs. With respect to the statement of Mr. Maness (transcript, 555-558) the carrier witness does not deny that his earnings declined as a result of the award from approximately $847 to $533 a month. to this drop in income Mr. Maness has had to spend 250 percent more time in Nor does the carrier deny that in addition commuting to work and has had to bear proportionately greater commuting expenses (transcript, 1985-1987). The carrier witness would ignore the hardships imposed on this man by the facile assertion that Mr. Maness was assigned to the higher paying freight assignment only a few months before the carrier forced him on to the less desirable job. The carrier's approach completely overlooks the irony and pity in this situation. Here is a man, Mr. Maness, who in order to obtain this more coveted freight job in August 1964, had to work in less desirable jobs as a fireman for this railroad for 19 years. Then, a few months after reaching this long sought for goal of higher earnings and better working conditions the carrier, under the guise of the arbitration award, destroys all this man has worked for these 19 years. To justify the hardship the carrier witness alleges again that the firemen, such as Mr. Maness, commute to work voluntarily because they chose to live in "small low-cost towns and villages" such as Bismarck, Mo. (transcript, 1986). I have already indicated the true reasons why firemen live in or near smaller towns. As to Mr. Maness, the fact is that he moved to Bismarck 20 years ago at the time he was hired out as a fireman with this railroad. In conclusion I would like to apologize for taking so long to answer the carrier witness' statement. The longer explanation, however, was required by the gross distortions and inaccuracies contained in the carrier's statement. In summing up, it may be fairly said that the carrier's response is basically at attempt to justify the hardships imposed. It really does not deny the nature or extent of the hardships. We ask this committee to bear in mind that Congress, when it enacted Public Law 88-108, did not intend that the rights of the senior firemen with 5, 10, or more years of service and as to whom the railroad was required to retain as firemen were to be treated in such a heartless fashion by the railroad. Senator BARTLETT. There being no further witnesses, the committee stands in recess. (Thereupon, at 1:25 p.m. the hearings were recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.) |