Lapas attēli

The budget as proposed by the administration places a limitation on the use of appropriated funds for the federally financed arbitrations associated with grievances filed under section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. This limitation would require the parties to provide to the National Mediation Board 25 percent of the cost of section 3 arbitration services.

For this activity, $1,502,000 is requested, a decrease of $214,000 compared to the amount allocated in fiscal year 1975. The cost of referee salaries and travel expenses reflects a decrease of $230,000. Increases totaling $16,000 are shown in estimated obligations for permanent positions, Executive Order 11811, and within-grade promotions, and accompanying personnel benefits.

In summary, the National Mediation Board is requesting a total of $3,105,000 to finance activities under the Railway Labor Act for the fiscal year 1976. This is a decrease of $131,000 compared to the amount authorized for fiscal year 1975.


Mr. Patten. How does the workload of the Board today compare with the workload of a year ago?

Mr. Ives. It has decreased slightly. Page 11 gives a composite case report. Pending at the end of 1973 were 313 cases. At the end of 1974 there are 278 cases.


Mr. PATTEN. The justifications indicate in 1974 you had about $96,000 not spent which lapsed on June 30.

Mr. Ives. That is correct, sir. That comes out of the $140,000 which is set aside for the emergency board and we do return that amount of money when it is unexpended.

However, we have found over the years it is better to have the money in reserve rather than to have to come to Congress if we have more than anticipated emergencies.


Mr. Patten. You are requesting a decrease of $131,000 in your 1976 budget. I assume the decrease results from the special appropriation language you are proposing at page 1 of your justification ?

Mr. Ives. That is correct, sir.


Mr. PATTEN. I have a letter on this subject from Chairman Staggers of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.

Why are you proposing this language ?
Mr. Ives. May I read a short statement and then comment ?
Mr. PATIEN. Yes.

Mr. Ives. The change in our appropriation language text originated in the Office of Management and Budget.

The impact of the language is to shift 25 percent of the cost of arbitration of railroad grievances under section 3 of the Railway Labor Act, formerly paid by the Government, to the parties using the services.

Since major changes in our operating procedures will be necessary when enacted, the parties were made aware of the change in our appropriation language and we requested them to furnish any suggestions that they may have regarding the implementation of the cost sharing. In addition, a meeting with the parties was held on March 10, 1975 in the National Mediation Board offices in Washington, D.C. As of this date no suggestions for implementation have been received from the parties.

Based upon the $898,000 we are requesting in our 1976 budget to cover the 75 percent of the cost of arbitration of railroad grievances authorized under section 3 of the act, the remaining 25 percent to be paid by the parties would be $300,000. This would provide a total of $1,198,000 for this activity:

Assuming that the parties will share the costs equally, the carriers would pay $150,000 and the labor organizations would pay $150,000. Rather than dealing with individual railroads and labor organizations, we would breakdown the $300,000 and request the National Railway Labor Conference—for the carriers—the Railway Labor Executives Association for the participating organizations and others to pay their respective share before the start of the fiscal year. We intend to furnish to the parties involved quarterly reports by carriers and labor organizations so that proper assessment could be made by the NRLC and RLEA to their respective members.

The rationale, of course, is that this is a unique service provided in no other industries but the railroad industry today, including the airlines. This would be a method of having the parties pay part of the cost.

Mr. PATTEN. Really, you are rewriting the law here.
Mr. Ives. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PATTEN. If the committee decides to turn down this language request, what would happen?

Mr. Ives. Two things would be needed, to restore the status quo. The elimination of that specific language, and a $300,000 additional appropriation for section 3-purposes of the act.

Mr. PATTEN. Did you see the letter from Chairman Staggers?
Mr. Ives. No; I have not.
Mr. PATTEN. He obviously doesn't like the language.

Mr. Ives. When we had this meeting I presided over it, March 10, the reaction of the parties was quite vocal; particularly one of the parties.

APPOINTMENT OF RAILROAD EMERGENCY BOARD Mr. PATTEN. I read in the paper that the President recently appointed an emergency board in the railroad dispute. Can you tell us more about that?

Mr. Ives. That particular dispute is a dispute between the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, BRAC, to be precise, and the NLRC, or rather the carriers represented by them.

We reached an impasse in negotiations and there would have been a national strike had we not recommended to the President, under section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, the Emergency Board which is now sitting. It has completed most of the hearings. However, they haven't yet issued a report and recommendations.


Mr. PATTEN. What is the current status of affairs in the airline industry? What kind of a year do you look forward to ?

Mr. Ives. We look forward to a very busy year. We have six key cases pending at the moment. However, there are a lot of other cases. By "key" I mean they are major disputes-one is on a countdown which means the organization will be free to strike on May 6 unless settled and that is a dispute between the airline flight attendants and Western Airlines.

There are five other disputes which are not on a countdown but which will complete this round among the major air carriers. We anticipate a number of cases involving the machinists during the next year. Their agreements are all open for amendment from June through November.

As you know, air carriers, bargain on an individual basis as opposed to nationally.

We have a great deal of the representation work in the airline industry, representation cases.


Mr. PATTEN. Will you provide for the record a schedule of permanent positions for the Board ?

Mr. Ives. Yes, I will be very happy to.
Mr. PATTEN. You have increased it, have you not ?

Mr. Ives. No; we have decreased it. Excuse me. I stand corrected. It is unchanged.

[The information follows:]


1 2 1 7

Detail of permanent positions

Executive level III.
Executive level IV.

6 5 2 19 6

Total positions.



Mr. Patren. How much money is in your budget for payment of the standard level user charges to the GSA? How does that compare with fiscal year 1975? Is GSA like all other landlords; do they raise your rent every year?

Mr. Ives. It is a new item. It is an increase of $17,000.


Mr. Patten. With regard to your travel costs at page 12 of the justifications, you say total travel days is increasing from 2,574 in 1974 to 2,890 in 1976. What accounts for that increase?

Mr. Ives. It is merely our anticipation of increased workload, particularly again in the airline area where, as I say, they bargain by individual carriers opposed to the railroads where they bargain nationally.

During the last year we brought more than the ordinary number of cases to Washington so we have had a falloff in our costs.

Mr. Patten. How do you compute your travel costs? Do you just pick a number out of the air?

Mr. Ives. It is based on previous experience, anticipated disputes during a particular year.

Mr. PATTEN. I have no further questions. What about the gentleman from California, Mr. Roybal?

Mr. ROYBAL. I am prompted to ask the following question. It is my understanding, first of all, that Governor Brown is advocating that all officials in the State of California no longer fly first class; that they all fly coach. What is your policy?

Mr. Ives. We normally fly coach.

Mr. ROYBAL. It is also my further understanding there is a great deal of criticism about the fact that most people in the Federal Government do use first class facilities when they travel.

Mr. Ives. We have used both as board members, but the staff has always used coach.


Mr. RoYBAL. Examining the justifications, I have been trying to determine how many employees you have altogether.

Mr. Ives. We have 7Â actual full-time employees. Our figures reflect so-called part-time employees, and they are basically referees who are paid by the Federal Government to settle railroad disputes which was the subject of earlier interrogation by the chairman. We carry them as part-time employees.

Mr. RoYBAL. Can you give me a breakdown of full-time and parttime employees?

Mr. Ives. There are presently 74 full-time employees. These are 74 full-time and 31 WAE or part-time.


Mr. ROYBAL. Do you have a so-called affirmative action plan? Mr. Ives. Yes; we do. Mr. ROYBAL. Can you give me a breakdown on that, the composition of your staff ?

Mr. Ives. Will do.

(The information follows:] Total employment as of April 30, 1975.

71 Minority group 1, Negro---


Mr. ROYBAL. I will particularly be interested in knowing how many Spanish surnamed employees you have. I don't consider an affirmative action plan to be in operation until such time that all minorities are given the same opportunity and that one ethnic minority is not favored over another.

It seems to me it is more or less the policy of the Government at the moment to favor one minority over another and wherever a condition such as that exists, then the affirmative action program is not being adhered to. Mr. Ives. Speaking for myself, sir, my philosophy is very

much like my father's, who served in the Senate a number of years ago. I fully believe in equal opportunity for all groups in our society.

Mr. ROYBAL. Thank you.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. Thank you, gentlemen.

Justification of the Budget Estimates


Federal Funds

General and special funds:

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including emergency boards appointed by the President $3,186,0007$3,105,000: Provided, that this appropriation shall not be available to pay In excess of 75 per centum of the costs of the arbitration of railroad grievances authorized under Section 3 of the Act,

(45 U.S.C. 154; Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Act, 1975.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »