Senator CANNON. I understand that. Assuming that you go to the point that the joint committee or some other committee determines that this matter cannot be resolved through collective bargaining, then isn't it a fact that you would be just as opposed at that time as you are now to the solution suggested in Senate Joint Resolution 102?

Mr. GILBERT. That won't change the opposition to the solution. But I am not convinced from my experience in these negotiations-while I have not attended every session I have attended as many as my other commitments would permit-I am not convinced that we have yet entered true collective bargaining, and therein lies our trouble thus

far.

Senator CANNON. I join in hoping that you will be able to resolve this matter among yourselves in true collective bargaining without Congress having to take action of any kind.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Monroney?

Senator MONRONEY. Isn't it a fact that the fireman issue is the keystone of this whole threat of a national railroad strike, and has held up the progress of all of the collective bargaining?

Mr. GILBERT. Not alone, Senator, because in the promulgation the cut in wages, which is very serious, the elimination of jobs other than that now held by the firemen, is in evidence. They extend the runs, the carriers are given the right to abolish terminals as their promulgation determines. Not only will the people presently working be furloughed, even though they may be presently in service as an engineerthey may either be reduced or some of the men that are now holding regular jobs would be furloughed. Not only in the group that is represented in these proceedings, the five transportation organizations, but with the elimination of the many terminals contemplated by the right the carriers want to preserve unto themselves, many of the nonoperating employees presently working at those terminals, their jobs would likewise be abandoned.

So it is a real extensive situation which has not been given much publicity in the proceedings up to this point, or probably within the next few days.

But those are actual facts coming from the implementation of the promulgation.

Senator MONRONEY. As I understood the testimony of the brotherhoods, the railroads' refusal to seriously bargain on the other issues was because they said that unless they could solve the firemen issue then didn't want to go on with the other collateral ones; is that correct? The ones that were not considered of as great a magnitude as the 32,500 firemen's jobs at issue?

Mr. GILBERT. To put it in proper perspective, I believe they refer to it as the manning issues.

Senator MONRONEY. They have said that unless they can begin to make progress on that, there is no use to worry about the other; isn't that correct?

Mr. GILBERT. They have made statements something akin to that. Senator MONRONEY. As I understand from the brotherhoods, they have held this up primarily because they could not solve the firemen problem. Is there a possibility-as the President said in his speech last night, that maybe we can go through the outer gate, make one

step forward in our program of atomic control as we did with the test ban when the treaty was initialed that you could start at the small end of the spectrum in the collective bargaining talks?

Mr. GILBERT. We have been willing to start at every end, middle, and work both directions.

Senator MONRONEY. In your statement, on page 20, you say:

It was basic to my proposition that all firemen presently in employment be retained and that vacancies be created in the particular daylight yard jobs and daylight branch line jobs only on an attritional basis. I believe that the offer was a reasonable approach to settlement of the issue. However, at the time I made the offer, the carriers were packing their bags in preparation for leaving the meeting room *

Did you mean by your statement that it was basic to your proposition that you would never in the course of bargaining consider anything greater in attrition than the proposition you made at that time?

Mr. GILBERT. We didn't get beyond that point, Senator, because we didn't get an opportunity. We didn't have a proposal to work with, and that is one of the failures, I think. We never had an opportunity. Senator MONRONEY. Did you leave that impression when you said it was basic to the proposition, that under no circumstances would you bargain on anything other than the daylight yard jobs and daylight branch line jobs, and then only on an attritional basis?

Mr. GILBERT. We have never had an opportunity to discuss that with the carriers, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. Up to this point you have made no proposition to them, and they have made no proposition to you; is that correct? Mr. GILBERT. We have made a written proposition to them, but we have not received any reply to it from them.

Senator MONRONEY. But only to the extent at which you say it is basic to your proposition, that all firemen presently must be retained? Mr. GILBERT. That was presented in writing, yes, sir. And we

have not

Senator MONRONEY. That is still your hard-and-fast position on it? Mr. GILBERT. We haven't had any opportunity to discuss it. Senator MONRONEY. Is it bargainable?

Mr. GILBERT. That is what we want to talk with the carriers about. Senator MONRONEY. I understand that wages can be bargained. If you are asking for a dollar, there is always a chance to shave it to 99 cents or so on. But when you are dealing with human jobs, human beings, it is awfully hard to reach a compromise unless there is some position that you might be able to reach.

Senator PASTORE. Will the Senator yield on that point? I think this is negotiable, too. The carriers are saying 32,500 jobs. They are saying 5,500. There ought to be a cutoff. That is how this thing goes. That is how you collectively bargain.

Senator MONRONEY. This is what I am asking, Is there a negotiable position that can be arrived at in collective bargaining?

Mr. GILBERT. Senator, I don't like to be evasive, but in 30-some years of bargaining I don't like to tip my hand on bargaining to somebody who can't bargain with me. If you are in a position to bargain with me, then we might go from there. I don't want to be rude, Senator, but I just want to express to you my feelings about that.

Senator MONRONEY. I recognize your position at the bargaining table, and I am just trying to see if a continuation of the situation we

face would offer a hope of having a meeting of the minds. You still that it is wise to go forward at the bargaining table?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir, that is where I would like to do my collective bargaining, at the bargaining table.

Senator MONRONEY. We all would, if we could possibly arrive at a solution.

Senator PASTORE. I merely want to clarify one thing. This committee is a watchdog committee. I want both sides to know that. We have primary jurisdiction in this matter. It doesn't end with this resolution. It goes beyond it. It is part of the jurisdictional function of this particular committee. I want it clearly understood by all sides concerned that there is a watchdog element going on now. Furthermore, for the fairness of this hearing, I want both sides to know that there will be rebuttal and surrebuttal if it becomes necessary. If this hearing has to go to its conclusion, it will be complete. I want to thank you gentlemen for testifying here today, and we still have other brotherhoods to hear from.

We have already scheduled, a long time ago, the civil rights hearings, and they will resume at 9:15 on Monday morning.

We cannot meet as a committee if the Senate is in session without unanimous consent, and we doubt very much that we can get that, through past declarations. So we will recess this hearing now until 4 o'clock Monday afternoon. If the Senate is in session, then we will recess until 7 o'clock Monday night.

I would hope from now until next week that the parties will do their collective bargaining.

Thank you all for coming.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene on Monday, July 29, 1963, as heretofore stated.)

21-466-63- -84

RAILROAD WORK RULES DISPUTE

MONDAY, JULY 29, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 7 p.m., in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Hon. John O. Pastore presiding. Senator PASTORE. The hearing will please come to order.

Our witness is Mr. L. J. Wagner, president of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. Will you identify your colleagues, and you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF L. J. WAGNER, PRESIDENT, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN; ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY WILMARTH, COUNSEL; AND C. F. CHRISTIANSEN, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on my right is Harry Wilmarth, the attorney for the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Next to him is Mr. Carl Christiansen, who is the director of research for the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen.

Senator PASTORE. We are very privileged to have you with us. Mr. WAGNER. Neither part has a statement. I will make the statement, and any questions that I feel they may be able to answer faster or better than I, I will refer to them, if there are no objections.

Senator PASTORE. All right, sir. You may commence.

Mr. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Louis J. Wagner. I am president of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, an international railway labor organization which was founded in 1868 and has its headquarters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to appear before your committee and express the views of our organization in respect to the joint resolution under consideration.

I will say at the outset that we are very happy that you have insisted on time in which to investigate this legislation. It would be most unfortunate if the Congress enacted new legislation in the field of railway labor relations in haste and without an adequate opportunity of considering its ultimate effect or possible alternatives. With due respect to the Interstate Commerce Commission, we believe that the proposed legislation must be recognized as an authoriza